Conference back40::soapbox

    
    
       i took the kids to see alexander and buchanan yesterday.  the
       buchanan rally is hard nosed populism of the sort that i've really
       only read about.  (i studied the populist movement in the 19th
       century and this has all of the elements.  lot's of genuine frustration
       by people who are barely getting by, directed towards the ruling elite.)
       the dangerous aspect about buchanan is that he genuinely believes
       in his misguided policies.  that's what makes him so dangerous.
       
       alexander is bill clinton in a red-flannel shirt.  a real schmoozer
       who is your typical smooth talking southern governor.  my guess
       is that dole will be mortally wounded in the primary tomorrow and
       that republican money will rally around alexander as the person
       who will give clinton a real race.
    
       n.h. primary
    
       buchanan  - first (better than expected)
       dole      - second
       alexander - third
     

    
      this one is a real nailbiter, I think.  I'll guess Dole.
    
      bb

	Alexander.....

    ol' pat will take NH.  again.

    Dole will squeak out a narrow victory, followed by Buchanan. Alexander
    will run slightly above Forbes. The rest will be also rans.

    >ol' pat will take NH.  again.
    
     When has Pat "taken" NH?

    I predict the Republican party will sefl destruct before the end of
    March.  

 Buchanan will take it.





 Jim

    come to think of it, i guess pat only put a good scare
    into the bushpeople last time around in new hampster.
    
    

       Buchanan  1st
       Dole      2nd
       Lamar     3rd
       Forbes    4th
    

    picard will win by a landslide!

Dale Jarrett wins over Dale Earnhardt by a nose...

    
    	Nah, he won by a nose AND a bumb.
    

	Audrey Meadows is going to start throwing the junk we left on the moon
back to earth. 

    
    	re:  .11
    
    
    	I still have my "Picard/Riker '92" bumper sticker up in my
    	office.  Maybe I should write a 6 over the 2....
    

  Z   the dangerous aspect about buchanan is that he genuinely believes
  Z   in his misguided policies.  that's what makes him so dangerous.
    
    Just as Clinton believed in many of his misguided policies.  Yet even
    with a democrat controlled congress, he was still ineffective.  Too
    many checks and balances.  I find it amusing that the name Buchanan is
    synonomous with "dangerous" and "scared", or ascared for the Mrs. X
    types, but when Killer Billy was voted in nobody seemed to have the
    intelligence to realize what they were doing.
    
    Glen, New Hampshire is a conservative state.  Lamar will not be
    victorious up here.
    
    1. Buchanan
    2. Dole
    3. Forbes
    4. Lamar
    
    You heard it here first.  We get squeemish over the phrase, "cultural
    war".  What we fail to take into account is that Clinton raised a
    cultural war in 1993 after three weeks as president.  It's called a tax
    hike and quite frankly, I'm surprised at the loss of memory our country
    has taken. 
    
    -Jack

I thought Clinton had no beliefs and only says what he says cause he
wants your vote. 

Here we got us a regular right kinda guy claiming that Clinton may
actually believe his own spiel.

FWIW, IMHO, Buchanan does believe what he says, much more so than
Clinton.

TTom

    >FWIW, IMHO, Buchanan does believe what he says, much more so than
    >Klinton.
    
    I TRULY believe that Bill never inhaled. And neither did Hillary.

re:        <<< Note 654.17 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    Glen, New Hampshire is a conservative state.  Lamar will not be
>    victorious up here.
>    
>    1. Buchanan
>    2. Dole
>    3. Forbes
>    4. Lamar
>    You heard it here first.

I've got a two-liter bottle of Classic Coca-cola that says you're mistaken,
Jack. Forbes will finish 4th in NH tomorrow. I'm unsure of the order for
the top three slots, but Alexander will be either 2nd or 3rd.

Is it a wager?

    YES!!  Your on!!!  If Lamar comes in third, I will relinquish a two
    liter bottle of your favorite soda beverage!  I believe Forbes will
    come in third because Lamar is Clinton in disguise and most people know
    this!  
    
    -Jack

    
    	I predict that Jack will win this bet.
    

 Forbes is through. Did anybody happen to see him buying a half gallon 
 of milk on Friday?  CSPAN had a clip of it.  Pretty funny.



 A guy on Howie's show said that Forbes is a dead ringer of Mr. Peanut.



 Jim

	Keyes may come in 4th......

    That would be far better.  

    
    "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is
    a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known."
                                        

    
    | Just as Clinton believed in many of his misguided policies.
    
    Clinton doesn't believe in anything except his own libido and
    polling information (not to be confused).
    
    Buchanan is "dangerous" because he is a lighting rod for 
    what Lugar appropriately coined as being the "politics of
    paranoia". 
    
    I'll take you on on the Forbes/Alexander bet. 
     

>    I'll take you on on the Forbes/Alexander bet. 
     
Without more specificity of your intent, you've got as sure a thing
as Shawn at this point, Pvt.

    Prediction:
    
    Bill Clinton will win the last election.
    
    George Bush will successfully imitate an idiot.
    
    Hillary will publically don her jockette strap & try to rearrange
     medical care for us, fixing 'a national emergency; a national tragedy'.
    
    She'll wind up back baking cookies.
    
    A bunch of losers will emerge from the woodwork to run for president
    in the next election.

    
      Great for 92.  Now try predicting 88.  :-)  bb
    

    
    	RE: -1
    
    	I think we're pretty much at our "Jack limit" in this confer-
    	ence, so you might want to consider changing your name.
    

    going out on a limb, but i'll say it will be
    
    buchanan
    alexander
    dole
    forbes
    
    

    As heard on the radio this morning, regardless of who wins, it will be
    a hollow victory anyway.  In the grand scheme of things, NH will merely
    be the first primary on the campaign trail, nothing more, nothing less.  

    >As heard on the radio this morning, regardless of who wins, it will be
    >a hollow victory anyway.  In the grand scheme of things, NH will merely
    >be the first primary on the campaign trail, nothing more, nothing less.  
    
     Yes, but as the first primary, NH has the ability to shape the race.
    People will likely start dropping out, and people like Alexander who
    need $ can profit by a strong showing in NH. The candidates aren't
    underestimating the importance of a good showing in NH.

    
    i only watch it to see the shots of those pretty little towns.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
      Delaware Friday.  See Phil Hays' very helpful 552.42.  hth, bb
    
    

re .37:

>                 -< the only state with an arc in its border >-

What about Pennsylvania (the other "side" of the arc) ?

>                 -< some other states not arc-challenged, too >-

	this is a sure sine we're going off on a tangent.

    
      OK, i guess Pa. is reverse-arced.  Notice I didn't say curved,
     like a river border.  I mean "arc", as in "section of a circle".
     The north Delaware boundary was chartered by a circle of a known
     radius from a fixed point.  I don't know of any other such thing
     in the USA - certainly not in those big dumb rectangular ones they
     have out west.
    
      bb

The top of W.Va. is rounded but you've ruled it out with the restrictions
from rivers.

In fack, the outline of W.Va. is the easiest of any of the states not
constrained by right angles.

Take you left had, palm facing you. Make a fist, then pretend you're
hitchhiking with the ol' thumb out. Next give yourself the finger which
kinda causes the index and 3rd finger to come into play and you've pretty
much got the outline of the state.

TTom

    
      if i try this by the side of the road in w va, will the truck stop ?
    
      bb

    
    That hurt my hand.
    

If your palm is facing you, you're giving someone else the finger.  hth.

>If your palm is facing you, you're giving someone else the finger.  hth.

Ooops and right you are. That should be back of hand facing you.

TTom

    
    -b's tip for the day:
    
    It's easier to find the back of your hand than the front
    of your ass.
    
    -b

    
    That hurt even more.  May I use my right hand instead?
    

If'n you do that then one of them panhandled ends up somewhere in the
middle of Ohio. Considering ohio, that wouldn't be all that bad, I guess.

Maybe think of it this way: it was the Cleveland Browns but now it's the
Baltimore to-be-determineds so you gotta flip-flop that thumb.

TTom

    
    How about if I use my right hand and turn my palm facing me rather than
    my left hand with my palm facing away?
    

I just tried that and ended up giving you the finger.

I beg forgiveness...

    
    Is it only giving the finger when the back of one's hand is facing the
    fingeree?  Isn't that kind of limiting?
    

Another unusual state border is part of the MA/NH border.  Instead of the
usual straight line, center of a river (or an arc) it was originally defined
as x miles away from the center of the Merrimack river.  Since then I think
it was redefined as a series of short straight lines.

I stand four square for the right of every American to give the finger to
themselves in any manner fitting.

The government has no business getting into the finger giving business.

  > The government has no business getting into the finger giving business.
    
    I believe that the government IS the finger giving business.
    
    -b

re:        <<< Note 654.21 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

Classic Coca-cola will be fine, Jack. Drop it by ZKO in person and I'll buy
you a cup of coffee.


Thanks,
Your pal, -Jack

Buchanan's message of exclusion and hate won't win him the 
presidency but will cause damage to the Republicans.

He might have a better chance during poorer economic times 
(higher unemployment...)

Can't wait to hear his Republican convention speech. 


Prediction: Clinton wins in 96. 

        My prediction was  dead-center perfect !!!
    
        see reply  .10 
    
    
     Jack
    

    Yup, Buchanan is The Destroyer of the Republican party.  His gain is
    the party's loss.  This is very unfortunate.

     > Yup, Buchanan is The Destroyer of the Republican party.
    
         It needs a shake up !!!!!!!!!
    
             Buchanan's right !!!!!  Nothing EVER changes inside the
      DC beltway !!!
    

    Possibly but it appears that Pat will be a catalyst for a complete
    teardown first.  Pat's presence will sunder the party to its
    foundation.  Maybe this will be a good thing in the long run, who
    knows.  Brace yourself for another 4 years of Clinton and a loss of 
    republican seats in congress.  
    
    Brian

    Buchanan's ego indulgence is going to cost the republican party, and
    hence, the country by restoring a chaotic democratic party to power by
    scaring away moderate voters. His popularity is a thorn in the side of
    the republican party, who can ill afford the backlash effect that his
    prominence brings to the general election. 

    buchanan is poetic justice for his party.

        Brace yourself for a Buchanan whitehouse.
    
           Every time there's a lot of candidates running for one party,
    people ALWAYS say it will benefit the other party because of the
    in-fighting.   Not alway the case.  THis is JUST  the EARLY shake down
    phase of the primary !!!!
    
      Jack
    

    Buchanan learned his campaign tactics of fear in the guise of hope and
    protectionist paranoia in the guise of economic salvation from someone
    else who had fabulous success with them, a man who presided over his
    country's fortunes for 12 years.  What more could Pat want?
    
    The guy in question was Adolf Hitler.
    
    People who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  Thus
    my prediction:  If we're fools enough to hand Buchanan thw White House,
    the best we can hope for is catastrophe.

      Hey Binder,
    
        protectionist paranoia ???  You sound like a TV anchor !
    
      On trade, Buchanan does NOT want to lock up the store. He just
    doesn't want to give it away. Not to leave it un-locked at night
    to be looted.  sort_to_speak.
    
      

    
    the republican party needs to bring back Barry Goldwater.

    On more thing Binder,,,
    
       campaign tactics of fear ???  Most candidates are guitly of that.
    
      By your words, they too are like Hitler.
    
    

    .68
    
    Buchanan plays his little protectionist game by distorting the facts
    about NAFTA.  He runs these gritty ads saying we've lost jobs and so
    forth, and so NAFTA is a failure.  The FACT is that NAFTA was passed
    with the understanding that it would take YEARS to level out - those
    who supported it were careful to explain this - and they admitted we
    would see a slump before things got better.
    
    Buchanan, sir, is a LIAR!!  But then he's playing at being a pol, so
    he thinks he has to do what pols do.

    .70
    
    The only Repub who has shown a shred of dignity and forthrightness in
    this whole sick campaign is Lugar.  Even Alexander has used negative
    campaigning - until he saw that it wasn't helping.

    i prefer to compare pat with mussolini because benito
    was always harkening back to the "glories of the ancient
    roman empire" and "ideals" that disappeared with modernity.
    now, pat can't go back that far cuz we're such a young 
    country - he can only go back, say, 40-50 years.

    
    well maybe in 2000, the republicans will nominate Anheuser/Busch

    >Buchanan learned his campaign tactics of fear in the guise of hope and
    
    from Clinton.

    From Clinton?  The president who supported NAFTA?  I think not.

     Buchanan is not a liar.
    
      Liars are usually in it JUST for personal gain.  And what I mean
    by "In it"  can be anything.  Political office, fleecing the elderly
    from their money, etc...etc.  Buchanan is a devoted believer in God.
    And that causes him place God first in his life. And his own hide,
    second. It also causes him to believe that we are ALL children of God.
    It also allows him to stand tall, rock solid, and honest !!!
    
     He is not out to destroy ANYONE !!!
    
    
    

    >From Clinton?  The president who supported NAFTA?  I think not.
    
     I didn't claim he sounded the protectionist alarm, did I?

    |Buchanan is a devoted believer in God.
    |And that causes him place God first in his life. 
    |And his own hide, second.
    
    sounds like priest material to me.

    Buchanan seems incapable of recognizing that this country is not a
    theocracy. That's the biggest reason why he should not be President.

    > Buchanan seems incapable of recognizing that this country is not a
    > theocracy. That's the biggest reason why he should not be President.
    
      Buchanan in an interview last weekend, Told Sam Donaldson while they
    where discussing school prayer,  that he does NOT want to force
    children in schools into prayer/study.  He JUST wants to make it 
    available to them.  To allow them the FREEDOM to have a moment for
    prayer !!!!!!!!!   NOT to have it outlawed. !
    
    
    Jack
    
    
     
    

                     <<< Note 654.77 by MKOTS3::FLATHERS >>>
                                -< rock solid >-

RE: Buchanan is not a liar.
RE: He is not out to destroy ANYONE !!!
    
He probably means well, but he's the answer to Clinton's prayers.

One of President Clinton's chief political advisors was on one of the 
Sunday talk shows, and he was asked who the White House wanted to run 
against.  He tried to duck the question, but the journalist repeated the 
question.  The White House wants to run against: Buchanan or Forbes.


RE: Buchanan's character

I remember that just after the Civil War, a prominent northern politician
wrote (with a touch of humor):

    I think that Robert E. Lee should have been hanged.  It is altogether
    true he was a good man with a fine character.  Those are the men that
    do most of the real damage in this world. 

>      Buchanan in an interview last weekend, Told Sam Donaldson while they
>    where discussing school prayer,  that he does NOT want to force
>    children in schools into prayer/study.  He JUST wants to make it 
>    available to them.  To allow them the FREEDOM to have a moment for
>    prayer !!!!!!!!!   NOT to have it outlawed. !

It's not outlawed now.    

    .77
    
    > Buchanan is not a liar.
    
    A liar is someone who says things that are untrue.  A lie can be a
    flat-out falsehood, it can be a distortion of the truth, and it can be
    omission to tell the truth in a situation that requires the truth. 
    Buchanan is a liar.
    
    > Liars are usually in it JUST for personal gain.
    
    Non sequitur.  Motive has nothing to do with the matter.
    
    > Buchanan is a devoted believer in God.
    
    Irrelevant.  Except that his beliefs lead him to think he has the right
    to make other people's beliefs and behaviors illegal simply because he
    disapproves of those beliefs and behaviors.
    
    > He is not out to destroy ANYONE !!!
    
    Except homosexuals, whom he would force to abide by his moral
    strictures and thereby deny them their full selfdom.

       .82     I'd LOVE to see Buchanan/Clinton showdown !!!!!
    
       Clinton may think Pat's his answer to his prayers.
                                  

    
      A liar is NOT a person who says things that are untrue.
    
      That false definition must include Herr Binder himself, and myself.
    
      A liar is a person who says things HE BELIEVES to be untrue.  He is
     still a liar even if he is mistaken, and the things turn out to be
     true after all.
    
      bb

Do you think Pat will work to eliminate laws from the books or will he just 
work to add laws that conform to his beliefs and IMO make the problems this 
country faces worse?

    .86
    
    Okay, so I stand corrected.  Lying is indeed qualified by an intent to
    deceive.
    
    Buchanan is without doubt aware that NAFTA would cause a slump before
    leveling off, that it would take years before we saw the benefits.  He
    distorts that truth for his own purpose.  He is a liar.  He wishes to
    cozen people into believing that NAFTA has failed when in fact it has
    not yet had time to succeed or fail.
    
    Buchanan, as a Christian is without doubt aware that to attempt to
    subvert others' beliefs, when they have indicated that they do not wish
    to follow your way, is a violation of the teachings of Jesus.  (See 
    Matthew 10:14, Mark 6:11, and Luke 9:5.)  Leave them to go their way,
    and go your own way in the confidence that the Lord your God will judge
    them.  He is a liar.  He implies that making laws to damage homosexuals
    is the right thing.

    
 > Non sequitur.  Motive has nothing to do with the matter.
    
     Wrong.  Motive has EVERYTHING to do with the matter.

 >    Irrelevant.  Except that his beliefs lead him to think he has the right
 >    to make other people's beliefs and behaviors illegal simply because he
 >    disapproves of those beliefs and behaviors.
    
       Oh, it is VERY relevant.   A believe in God is a very powerful
  force in some Christians.

 >     Except homosexuals, whom he would force to abide by his moral
 >     strictures and thereby deny them their full selfdom.

      This issue also was raised during an interview on the program
   Crossfire. 

     Buchanan stated he does NOT hate homosexuals.  He does, hovever,
   disagree with the lifestyle.  He stated that he does NOT intend to
   discriminate against them.  He did hovever, state that he thinks it's
   wrong to parade down the street waving banners proclaiming sexual
   preference,  STRAIGHT OR GAY !!!!

  

 >     Except homosexuals, whom he would force to abide by his moral
 >     strictures and thereby deny them their full selfdom.

Actually, it is homosexuality itself which denies an individual's full selfdom.
  

oh geeziz ....

    .90
    
    > Actually...
    
    IYNSHO, perhaps.

 re .81

 don't confuse them with facts!

 >     Except homosexuals, whom he would force to abide by his moral
 >     strictures and thereby deny them their full selfdom.



   Really?  How about the gay man who actually worked in his '92 campaign
   who was "outed" by some group?  The man submitted his resignation to
   Buchanan and he (Buchanan) ripped it up and threw it away insisting that
   the man stay on the job.




 Jim  

                     <<< Note 654.85 by MKOTS3::FLATHERS >>>
                           -< let him think that ! >-

President Clinton can do the following:

    o	Push negatives.  Buchanan is one of the few people who have 
	negative numbers much higher than President Clinton's.  There is 
	a solid percentage of people who will not vote for him under any
	circumstances.  The "unfavorable" numbers for President Clinton
	are also high, but against Buchanan, Clinton will look better.
	Buchanan, who will be labelled a "right wing extremist", is one of 
	the few people who can make President Clinton look like a statesman.
    o	"Getting to know you".  This year's Buchanan may be a "kindler,
	gentler" Buchanan, but the Clinton/Gore team can go back to video
	tape from Buchanan's last run at office and from the convention
	and show the American people all of those "immoderate" things that 
	Pat said.  Remember that convention?  Remember the Time and Newsweek
	cover stories about "family values", and how the GOP immediately
	sank in the polls?  Well, here we go again.
	[By the way, I don't think that Buchanan will be able to call this 
	negative advertising.  The Clinton/Gore team will be able to simply 
	say, "We are not taking statements out of context or digging up 
	dirt.  We are just showing the American people what Pat Buchanan has 
	said.  If he thinks these statements are negative, then he shouldn't
	have said them."]
    o	Pat Buchanan doesn't have the experience.  Politics is the art of
	compromise, and Buchanan won't like doing it.  Also, I can't imagine 
	how he will put together a team to run the Government, he has never 
	done anything like that before.  There's a big difference between
	make speeches and making policy.
    o	Energizing the troops.  Take a look at the Washington Post poll:
	most of the American people are ignorant about their governement 
	and out of touch with politics.  Most, for example, did not know 
	who their Congressman was and who the Chief Justice of the Supreme
	Court was.  The problem for Democrats is that most of the people
	in this group, according to the poll, would agree with much of their 
	philosophy for activist government, but they don't vote.  Therefore, 
	the biggest problem for Democrats is to get out the vote.  [That's 
	the reason for the "Motor Voter" Law, to make it easier for people 
	to vote, even if they haven't voted before.  That's the reason why
	mail-in voting systems appear to have helped cost the GOP Bob 
	Packwood's old senate seat.]  Clinton will raise the specter of a 
	Buchanan White House, and droves will turn out to vote for Democrats.

    .89
    
    No, the reasons for which a person attempts to deceive others really
    don't bear on the issue.  It is the intentional deception itself that
    qualifies even well-meaning liars as such.
    
    A belief in God is no excuse to impose one's own beliefs on others who
    have indicated their unwillingness to abide by them.
    
    > Buchanan stated he does NOT hate homosexuals.
    
    Will he work to legalize homosexual marriage?  If not, he is imposing
    his religion on people who do not share it.  This is discrimination.
    
    Buchanan wants to make school prayer "available."  Will he provide
    prayer wheels for Tibetan Buddhists?  Will he provide prayer rugs and a
    muezzin for Muslims?  Will he build images of Baron Samedi for
    practitioners of Voudoun?  Without these things, he is not providing
    equal opportunity for prayer.  Providing NO opportunity is fair. 
    Providing unequal opportunity is patent discrimination.  It is also
    utterly typical of religious fundamentalists no matter what religion
    they profess.

 Z   Classic Coca-cola will be fine, Jack. Drop it by ZKO in person and I'll
 Z   buy you a cup of coffee.
    
    Aw damn...I forgot I made that bet!!!!  Be glad to take you up on the
    coffee though!  Thanks!
    
    

    >Will he work to legalize homosexual marriage?  If not, he is imposing
    >his religion on people who do not share it.
    
     Nonsense. By this measure, Clinton is imposing his religion on people
    who do not share it. Seriously, Dick. There are enough real reasons to
    criticize Pat Buchanan without making any up.
    

    Clinton at least made an attempt to get gays in the military recognized
    as having a right to be there without hiding who and what they were. 
    (It was not his fault that the military themselves forced him to
    abandon his attempt.)  Could we expect as much from Buchanan?  Not in
    the lifetime of this galaxy.

re: legalize homosexual marriage

There's other support for this besides "imposing his religion". Like the
Constitution with all that phony liberal equal protection stuff and all.

TTom

RE:. 89
    
   >>Buchanan stated he does NOT hate homosexuals.  He does, hovever,
   >>disagree with the lifestyle.  He stated that he does NOT intend to
   >>discriminate against them.  
    

    Oh yeah?  What about that quip last week from Pat, loosely paraphrased
    as "Homosexuals need NOT apply for a job in MY cabinet...", which he
    responded when asked if he had a problem with minorities.
    
    Sounds like discrimination to me.
  

      Buckley,,
    
       I believe reply .94 covers it.  Actions over words.
    

 Z   (It was not his fault that the military themselves forced him to
 Z   abandon his attempt.)
    
    Doesn't this fall under miltary law long established??

    aren't you forgetting that the prez is cic?  it is within his power to
    require the military to change its "law" - but he was told in so many
    words that such a change would end up in mutiny among high-ranking
    officers.

  .102  so we can't count on what he says being what he does, then.
	great.

    

>    Oh yeah?  What about that quip last week from Pat, loosely paraphrased
>    as "Homosexuals need NOT apply for a job in MY cabinet...", which he
>    responded when asked if he had a problem with minorities.
    
 
     I believe he was more specific in his reply.  Besides, why should he
     hire someone in his administration who does not support his agenda?
     Should Clinton hire those who are openly anti-gay, even if they
     are against *his* agenda?





  Jim  

I suggest that you are misquoting him.

/john

    
      I'm not going to vote for Buchanan in the Massachusetts primary,
     and I supported NAFTA, a good idea, but Dick Binder strikes me as
     really more wacko than usual here.  Did I think Ross Perot was
     "LYING" in opposing NAFTA ?  That's ridiculous on its face !  Ross
     opposed NAFTA, and said why, loud and clear, and he believed every
     word of it.  Fortunately for the administration, VP Algore would
     NEVER make a stupid unfounded accusation like Binder's.  One of the
     reasons Binder fails to convince anybody much, even when he's
     obviously right, is that he goes off on silly namecalling tangents,
     driving reasonable people to oppose him even when his arguments are
     sound.  There just isn't any evidence that Pat B. has any other
     opinion than that isolationsism, high tariffs, and abrogating
     NAFTA will be good for the country.  I disagree, but I don't believe
     for one second that Buchanan doesn't say what he thinks on the issue.
    
      bb

     .105,   ha,  you're such a riot.
    
    

    
    I personally think that Jack Flathers should start working directly
    for Pat Buchanon's campaign. It sounds as if you worship the ground
    he treads upon.

    .110
    
        I'm just well informed.
    

    i sense kirby around here, yes i do.

>     .105,   ha,  you're such a riot.

    i wasn't trying to be funny, but thanks.
    
    

The discussion in here on Buchanan is exactly why Clinton 
wins in 96. 

Poeple are sick of the moral issues being debated by people who
are at best lacking in morals. 

School prayer? (Pray at home and get it over with)

Nafta? (if unemployement was higher then you could blame you 
poor situation on Mexican's or politicians but the reality 
is that the economy is good and interest rates are coming down
again. Hitler didn't rise to power in solid economic times)

Rights of gays? (People don't buy this story of having a gay
work for him therefore Buchanan's record  is clean. The reality
is that his record can't be covered up by some weak gesture).

I hope the discussion around Buchanan continues to be 
driven by the religous right. Clinton's stance on the budget
makes him vulverable but who is going to care when we are
debating whether you have christian values or not?

 > I hope the discussion around Buchanan continues to be 
 > driven by the religous right. Clinton's stance on the budget
 > makes him vulverable but who is going to care when we are
 > debating whether you have christian values or not?

     I agree, discussion is healthy.   Interesting thing about 
  Buchanan's support is that a noticable % of his support/voters
  are not members of the religous right.   Take me for example.  With
  the exception of this topic,  you won't get the impression that I
  believe in God + bible.   Nowhere in notes will you find me standing
  on a soapbox plugging it.   But, I will fend off attacks on an honest
  person for standing up for his/her faith.  

   Jack

Question:  Buchanan's Roman Catholic.  There are rabidly anti-Catholic elements
in the religious right.  Are they supporting Buchanan?  If not, who are they
supporting?

    Mr. Rolands:
    
    A question.  uuuh...i forgot.  Hold on...

    Well, I guess it couldn't have been that important.

       
        anybody out there from the Christian Coalition  want to
     reply to  .116 ???
     
      I'm rather curious myself.
    
      my guess is,  the "rabibs"  Gerald asked about are few in #.
    
     just a guess...
    

    Probably because abortion is one of their main planks regardless of
    their doctrinal differences.
    

Mr. Marteeen:


A reply ...uugh


... wait a minute

.... who cares

    Yeahhhh...that was it!!!!

    re: .88
    
    What laws regarding homosexuals does Buchanan suggest we create?

>Question:  Buchanan's Roman Catholic.  There are rabidly anti-Catholic elements
>in the religious right.  Are they supporting Buchanan?  If not, who are they
>supporting?


 Many Christians I know support Buchanan.  Many do not. The Christian Coalition
 (of which I am not a big fan) does not endorse candidates.




 Jim

             <<< Note 654.123 by ACISS2::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

>    What laws regarding homosexuals does Buchanan suggest we create?


	Good question. In his victory speech the words he used are
	somewhat troubling. "We are going to have one law in this
	country, God's law".

	I guess he wants to bring back stoning and such.

Jim

    eeesh.
    
    Which god, and which laws in particular?
    
    eeesh.
    
    eeesh.

Pat's god and Pat's god's laws, who else.

    geez, maybe he thinks he's moses?

    He better take a couple of tablets and call me in the morning then.

    i supposes.

> somewhat troubling. "We are going to have one law in this
> country, God's law".

Ayatollah Pat? (sp?)

    as pat said it on primary night:
    
    "My friends, now the establishment in Washington is panicked! You can
    hear those fax machines humming - We need to find a guy to stop Pat
    Buchanan. They are going to attack us now.
    
    Don't wait for orders from headquarters! Mount up and ride to the sound
    of the gunfire!"
    
    it's about time we had a candidate who is not afraid to say what he
    really believes rather than what people want to hear. you certainly
    won't see a career pol like dole or alexander (aka clinton-lite),
    with the guts to do that. unfortunately, the whiners in the party will
    probably do everything they can to keep pat from getting the
    nomination. if that happens, i hope he goes third party to the
    election. 
     

    
    a third party venture will reap the same results as in '92.
    
    alexander or dole would not dead-lock congress.  they would
    basically let gingrich get on with his legislative agenda.
    
    the buchanan movement is grounded in populism. that is where
    he is getting the boost.  you can count on this kind of phenomenon
    to continue to grow during each election cycle as the disparity
    of income grows and as the global economy renders unskilled 
    labor in the country as too expensive and jobs move overseas.
    you can also expect this movement to switch parties.   
    populism is based on class struggle.  in four more years expect
    a buchanan type character to emerge from the democratic ranks.
    
    folks who enjoy the fact that clinton will rule four more years
    should go back to econ 101 and do a little arithmetic.  multiply
    $200 billion by 4 and apply the current t-note rates.  that's
    how much more money will go into debt service payments making
    the issue of achieving bb even more politically intractable then 
    things are today.
     
    of course dems are so many neros fiddling the resources of their
    country away.
    
    

    
      Neither Clinton nor any major Democrat or Republican will, or has,
     worked to legalize homosexual marriage, so by the Binder standard,
     everybody in politics is a bigot.  In fact, so is Binder himself,
     by his own definition.  Has he "worked" to legalize it ?  No.  It's
     a silly standard, and REALLY silly in a federal politician, since
     American marriage laws are mostly local.  There never was any such
     statute, nor will anybody propose one.  True, the SCOTUS has
     ruled state ant-miscigenation laws unconstitutional, and has made
     other rulings regarding marriage, but only Reynolds actually dealt
     with a federal law.
    
      The argument that Buchanan is a bigot, or nearly so, is based on
     an entirely different line of reasoning, that does not apply to
     Clinton or Dole.  Buchanan chooses to speak out in opposition to
     various changes being made or proposed, to change American life.
     The others don't.  Only Buchanan is "divisive" in this way, and
     he is so openly and honestly.  Only Buchanan has said that if you
     don't agree with him, vote for somebody else.  I cannot imagine
     Clinton or Dole doing that.
    
      bb

    Jim:
    
    Regarding living by God's law.  Put your fears to rest.  A president
    can set a tone but they cannot legislate morality.  Especially in a
    system with as many checks and balances as we have.  
    
 Z   Don't wait for orders from headquarters! Mount up and ride to the sound
 Z   of the gunfire!"
    
    Actually, this is a quote from George Custer.
    

    
    and we all know what happened to good ole George, don't we.

      .136,,,  now that Pat has won NH,  he qualifies for 
              secret service protection.
    
          

    
    >the buchanan movement is grounded in populism. that is where
    >he is getting the boost.  you can count on this kind of phenomenon
    >to continue to grow during each election cycle as the disparity
    >of income grows and as the global economy renders unskilled 
    >labor in the country as too expensive and jobs move overseas.
    >you can also expect this movement to switch parties.   
    >populism is based on class struggle.  in four more years expect
    >a buchanan type character to emerge from the democratic ranks.
    
    I would characterize some of Buchanan's rhetoric as populist, and a
    larger part as demagoguery.  I wouldn't (as many folks here have) put
    him in a class with Hitler, but he is about as extreme as I think we
    will see in a politician.
    
    Also, the deficit is on its way down, and Clinton has compromised time
    and time again in the bugdet negotiations.  You don't see much in the
    way of compromise on the right, it has been their way or the highway.
    As a dem I agree that the bugdet needs to be balanced, the sooner
    the better.  There could have been a budget agreement by now if there had
    been a willingness to work towards it on both sides.  And by the way, I
    disagree that now is the time for tax cuts.  We should not only have a
    balanced budget, but we should also pay down our debt, then take a
    break.
    
    >of course dems are so many neros fiddling the resources of their
    >country away.
    
    Obviously.  I can't wait to see the country in a depression. 
    Republicans have never voted on budget bills, nor did they own the
    executive branch while the deficit was building, nor did they add in
    any way to the deficit by enacting legislation that allowed the whole
    S&L debacle to occur.

      Labels like "EXTREME" + "RACIST"  are very dangerous and unfair
     to BUchanan IMO.
    
       He may only end up drawing the support of "true" extremist groups
    like the kind  David Puke  supports.
                         ^              
    
     After all,  if call on apple an orange, after a while, some will
    believe it's an orange.    And Buchanan's foes are hoping the labels
     will stick.
    

         sorry for the typo'z.....
    
     

>and Clinton has compromised time and time again in the bugdet negotiations.  
    
     Well, he's claimed to have compromised, but in fact he has not. If you
    look at the republicans initial position to their last position and
    compare it to the president's initial position to his last position
    you'll see who has actually done the compromising.

re: .141

	So you think Clinton is a man who stands behind his word?

    Buchanan won nothing.  He had more votes than the other candidates but
    he certainly did not garner the majority of the voting public.  The
    race was one of if not the closest in several decades.  Admittedly,
    Buchanan has quite a few supporters and has been able to attain a level
    of popularity equal to or greater than any of the current individuals
    running.  As the herd gets thinned, the others will turn to Dole. 
    Buchanan may continue to get 25% +/- of the vote but it will not be
    enough.  If by some chance he wins, the house of cards will come down.  
    
    What I am really surprised about is that no one has made the link
    between Pat and the anti-christ.  We are so close to the new millenium,
    and many of the signs include a charismatic leader who will rise from
    obscurity, blah, blah, blah.  
    
    Oh well, maybe the party will get its act together for the next
    election when both sides will be more or less on an even playing field.
    The Dems will have to scare up a candiate as well at that time.  
    
    Brian

    
    Heard one of Buchanan's ads on the radio this morning...it was playing
    in Arizona (which was the point of the story).
    
    He promises to build a fence along the Mexican border and send troops
    to stop the "invasion" of illegal immigration. 
    
    This is, of course, not playing well in Arizona where a) there are many
    Americans of Mexican descent and b) lots of people in Arizona make a
    living by trade with Mexico.
    
    Ah, I can see it now...phalanxes of troops guarding the sagebrush
    curtain. How about a new war with Mexico? If Pat timed it right, the
    shooting could break out on the 150th anniversary of the last war with
    Mexico.
    
    Those who call Buchanan a "demagogue" or "extremist" are in a little 
    off base.
    
    Try "crackpot."

    .134
    
    > Has [Binder] "worked" to legalize [homosexual marriage] ?
    
    Yes.  As a member of a lobbying organization.  You may now apologize.

    Brian:
    
    Speaking from eschatological viewpoint, the antiChrist will start by
    making a covenant with the Holy land.  Buchanan is not pro Israel.
    
    -Jack

    hey, wasn't farrahkan over there recently?  Huh?

       .143,  I beg to differ....
    
              Dispite the fact that Forbes + Dole  BOTH spent more
      campain cash, 	AND   dispite the media labels,  
    
         BUCHANAN  WON  NH  !!!!
    
    

    |BUCHANAN  WON  NH  !!!!
    
    you _are_ well-informed.

    
      well, ok, it was just a guess.  You're the first person i've
     ever met who actually spent any resources on this, which isn't
     even on the list of the top 50 concerns of Americans (according
     to them), and at any rate, isn't a federal question.  Of all the
     candidates, it is highly improbable that anybody has even
     mentioned it except maybe Buchanan, and that would be only to
     make fun of the idea.
    
      No, our interest in the rhetoric of Buchanan has nothing to do
     with your lunatic fringe position on this idea.  It has to do
     with rhetoric.  Buchanan speaks to people in a belligerent way,
     the others don't.  The term, rabble-rouser, has been suggested.
    
      bb

    .144,,,,,   Clinton initiated the move  to place more funds aside
               for the border fence along Mexico
    
           source,   C-SPAN
    
    

    
    
    the problem is that most dems don't see a depression coming.
    clinton has never gone on the air to make such
    a case since the implications of what needs to be done
    (massive cuts in spending) will disenfranchise himself from 
    a large segment of his constituentcy.  
    
    the deficit is expected to start growing again 
    come 1997.  most of the reduction of the deficit from '92
    has come from ending the payoff of the s and l scandal, a natural
    upswing in the business cycle, and an increase in taxes.  btw, 
    clinton lied when he said that the deficit was reduced by half (actually 
    it is about a third).  he has never championed this cause and
    tried to bury the issue through demagoguery in the '92 primaries.
    
    the pickle we are in was a bipartisan creation out of a deal
    made between tip o'neil and ronald reagan.  the former fought
    for a ceiling in cuts in spending the latter fought for a cut
    in taxes.  
    
    the question at hand is what political party do you think is
    currently best positioned ideologically to deal with the problem?  if
    dole were president, gingrich's agenda would have moved
    forward.  for all of its warts it does try to deal with the
    problem. 
    
    the concord coalition posted a long discourse on this in the
    washington post and the new york times.  the criticism of clinton
    was simple.  he has never championed the cause and will defer it
    to the poor soul who wins the presidency in the year 2000.  
    criticism of republicans was one of tactics, not of their core
    belief that we must get on with it.  that is a big difference.
      
    
    

    Jack, Buchanan is not pro-Jewish and pro-Jewish state as evidenced by
    his call for cutting off all foreign aid of which Isreal is the one of
    if not the largest benficiary.  Different from embracing the holy land
    though.  
    
    ::FLATHERS....  Believe what you will.  There were no winners in NH. 
    Some merely lost less than others.  If all of the primaries go this
    way, it will be quite a testament to how much support he really does
    not have.  This also holds true for the others.  Seeing the glass 25%
    full may be positive thinking but it won't get your candidate into the
    WH.  
    
    Brian

    Brian:
    
    Please tell me why you say he is not Pro Jewish.
    
    David Kinsley, his counterpart on CNN's Crossfire, was quoted as sying
    he sat opposite Pat Buchanan for years on Crossfire and he did not 
    infer one iota of an anti semitic remark.  Kinsley is Jewish.
    
    -Jack

    The Israel of today is also the Jewish state.  Israel and the Jewish
    State have the most or a substantial amount to lose by U.S. foreign 
    aid drying up.  Yes or no?  

Israel and Egypt get the most foreign aid.  Israel has a much stronger
economy than Egypt, so I suspect that if all foreign aid were eliminated,
Egypt would be in bigger trouble than Israel.

 >    Jack, Buchanan is not pro-Jewish and pro-Jewish state as evidenced by
 >    his call for cutting off all foreign aid of which Isreal is the one of
 >    if not the largest benficiary.  Different from embracing the holy land
 >    though.  
    
        So, tell me, what's your motive for twisting the truth ???

     Buchanan stated that he expects our foreign friends to work towards
   building and or using their own troops to defend their own soil.  
   He also stated he intends to still back our allies with money, supplies
   and air support. And ONLY if necessary, ground troups. "We pay too
   much of the human and financial cost the way it is now." 
      ....that's a quote MCBRIDE !!!

   
   Buchanan went on to use Isreal as IDEAL example of good 
   friendship/self reliance.


    Jack
  

    
    well Gerald, your information on Egypt surprised me. I would have
    guessed Russia as number two following Isreal.

    Buchanon == Woodrow wilson?
    
    We both know how well that worked in the past.

    Who is this Buchanon guy everyone keeps mentioning.

    Can't tell.  He's Anon.

    Actually, Wilson's wife ran the White House.

    i think pat has a blem on his bumb.

    Let's hope he retires.

    He won't if he has a good year.

{rimshot}

    pat's favorite expression:  "don't tread on me!"

    
    he dun lopped off his enemies.

    He knows how to wear rubber, yet he has no skids.

    He'll get a flat if he runs over tax.

Colin, he's a good Catholic so he prolly doesn't wear rubbers.

    burn rubbers!!

He's wanted to become commander-in-chief ever since he heard "sooner or later
you'll own Generals."

    or go bald.

    Buchanan.  Bible-belting radical or steel belted radial?

Some people think he's biased.

    Jack (Flathers), Since you are so fond of quotes, here is one from
    Pat's campaign home page.  It is the section on Social Security.  
    Take extra special care to read the part about 
    ----> zeroing out foreign aid <----. 
    	  ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^
    
    >Social Security - "This is another area where I part company with
    >Phil Gramm. Phil Gramm wants to offset the Republican tax cuts by
    >cutting cost-of-living adjustments for Social Security. I say
    >Congress has an obligation to totally zero-out foreign aid, and cancel the
    >$20 billion Mexican bailout, before it takes one penny out of the
    >pockets of retired Americans who have paid Social Security taxes their
    >entire lives." 
    
    So, either you are misinformed, have misinterpreted Pat's message, Pat
    is a liar, and you have falsely accused me of twisitng facts.  Take your
    pick, I really don't care.  From his statements above, it is clear he
    has no intent on providing for foreign aid, to anyone.  Please explain 
    how this corresponds to supporting Israel or anyone else for that matter.  
    By pledging we will be there if we are needed?  If your previous 
    statements are quotes as well, then I find this all to be disturbingly 
    misleading.  I still predict he will never hold the office of President
    of the United States.  
    
    Brian

    Ooops!  I did not have the whole story I guess.  My apologies.  Pat has
    a vision to phase out foreign aid, completely, irreversibly, within
    five years.  This is also from his webpage.  
    
    >Begin Phasing Out Foreign Aid 
    
    >"Just this week, the Washington Post not known as an America First
    >newspaper reported that 20 years of foreign aid to Egypt has done
    >virtually nothing to help Egypt develop a modern economy but has 
    >'undermined' economic reform there. It is time to stop these routinized 
    >transfers of America's wealth to governments around the world that do 
    >no good with it.  The tax cuts in the Republican Contract are a good 
    >start toward easing the burden of government on the American family. 
    >Terminating foreign aid can help pay for those tax cuts. The Republican 
    >Congress should restructure foreign aid, this year, to begin a permanent, 
    >irreversible, five-year phase out.
    
    Pat is unelectable in 1996.  
    
    Brian

    Brian:
    
    Do you believe the Mexican bailout is a sham?

        Brian,  I saw  several of his speaches from start to finish
     on C-SPAN.   I walked into his store-front on Elm st. Manchester
     and picked up his printed info.  I have not twisted anything.
    
      However, I did not consider that he might have a home page.
    
      can you provide a URL  ???
    
      thanks,
      Jack
    

            I got the URL.   My internet search engine is slow today !!!!!
    
       http:// www.buchanan.org
              

    Jack F.,
    
    I know you have not twisted anything.  Neither have I.  I am making my
    choice and drawing conclusions based upon the info I have.  
    
    http://www.buchanan.org  
    
    It is also listed in the Buchanan note.  
    
    Jack M.,
    
    My opinion on the Mexican Bailout is immaterial and irrelevant to Pat
    B.  
    
    Brian

    
       Brian, thanks for the homepage suggestion.
    
       Jack
    

	I would think the only folks who are against shutting
	the illegal alein pipeline down would be those who are
	illegally benifiting by it, ie. employing illegals.

	The _key_ word being _illegal_.



	billl

re .159:

No, Israel and Egypt are the largest recipients of US foreign aid.  One of
the results of the Israel-Egypt peace plan from the Carter days is that
Egypt would get comparable aid to Israel from the US.

  Z   My opinion on the Mexican Bailout is immaterial and irrelevant to Pat
  Z   B. 
    
    Maybe but perhaps his reasons might be plausible..which may sway your
    way of thinking.  Buchanan believes the Mexican bailout is a complete
    scam to wit the beneficiaries are only banks and large corporate
    interests.  In other words, the people are still in squalor.
    
    -Jack

    
    I wish I had more time to note but in the meantime
    I'd like to pose a question that Pat brings up....
    
    How can we compete within a free trade environment,
    on a global scale, with workers in other
    countries making a fraction of what we make per hour?
    
    If I remember right, Pat has brought this up in his speeches
    and it strikes a chord with many people. I am unaware of anyone
    on the campaign trail addressing this. Any boxers care to?
    
    					Thanks,
    
    						Hank

re: .188

	The hourly wages are not completely the issue.  If a country or company
has low productivity and low wages, then most anybody can be better them in a
free trading market.  The nationalistic feelings of the people also come into
play on determining the result in a free society.  The key here is FREEDOM!
Free people can not compete in the marketplace with enslaved people.  I don't 
know anything about the NAFTA treaty, but it better have a lot to say around
defining FREE and civil rights.  

      there has to be a balance, a half-way point between unprotected
    free trade and total isolation.
    
      I disagree with the idea suggested in .189
    
      we should stop or restrict the flow of unskilled jobs to other
    countries.   A country should NOT loose it's manufacturing base !!!
     
      Educating a higher % of our labor force is great idea.  The only
     down side I can see to that is eventualy, a college degree (depending
    on future available jobs.....ya know, that age old supply/demand thing)
    might become a dime-a-dozen.   And not having one, will NEVER get you
    an interview.
     

    Well, I don't think that it's a good idea for the government to force
    American companies to use unskilled labor in this country if they'd
    rather get it much, much, MUCH cheaper overseas.

    It keeps the production costs down to get the cheapest unskilled labor
    possible.

    Unskilled jobs do not pay enough in this country for people to make
    good livings (even though unskilled wages are far greater in this
    country than overseas.)

    Such jobs can be a dead end for young people.  I'd rather see American
    companies prosper (by having competitively priced products) so that
    we keep OTHER types of jobs here for our citizens.

    > How can we compete within a free trade environment,
    > on a global scale, with workers in other
    > countries making a fraction of what we make per hour?
    
    We compete in areas where we have a comparative advantage,
    is the short answer.
    
    The only types of manufacturing where we have any sort of comparative
    advantage are ones where our higher general degree of education, or our
    better transport infrastructure (for just-in-time parts delivery or
    just-in-time restocking) give us some sort of advantage.  Low-tech
    manufacturing is *not* an area where we have such comparative
    advantages and we shouldn't even try to compete there.  Our economy is
    good at a lot of things, but it isn't the best at everything, nor
    should it try to be.  In general, we have such a higher level of
    productivity than the rest of the world that until recently, it still
    made economic sense for manufacturers to pay American workers to
    produce low-tech goods, rather than deal with language, training, and
    tranport costs that go with low-wage country manufacturing.  But the
    progress that those countries have made in education, together with the
    development of local markets in those remote areas (so manufacturing
    over there now makes *more* sense than manufacturing here, less
    distance to transport finished goods to their final markets) that is 
    no longer the case- here or in Japan, which has recently closed many
    factories and exported their low-tech jobs.  Germany is still trying to
    retain a substantial manufacturing sector, but the troubles this policy
    causes, and the complications it creates in other areas (like
    controlling the budget) also point out the fact that no matter what
    they do, the policy isn't working- Germany's manufacturing sector is
    still shrinking.
    
    To summarize, we compete within a global free trade environment by
    specializing in the things we do better than anybody else, just like
    everybody else does.
    
    DougO

     Competing with a foreign work force that makes 50 cents an hour
     will in time, lower our standard of living, and raise theirs when
    enough time passes.   They will work their way towards, say 2 bucks
    an hour, and we will work our way to 2 bucks an hour in the future
    balanced/free trade/global economy world.
    
       You wanta make 2 bucks an hour  say,  15 years from now ???
    
    

    Given the excellent transportation and communication infrastructure
    world-wide goods (and a lot of services) will be produced at the point of
    least cost unless stopped by artificial (i.e. political) barriers.
    
    The US could probably close the borders and live on quite happily, with
    lots of jobs created to fill the import gap...and lots of jobs lost in
    the export sector.  Who knows what will happen to the standard of
    living; it will probably go down as cheap imports are no longer
    available.
    
    The key is output vs. cost.  Buchanan, like all other politicians, has
    to simplify the argument.  To put it fully is just too difficult and
    immediately gets clouded by special interests.  The US is already very
    restrictive in the trade of agricultural products.  
    
    If a Mexican worker has, say, 1/2 the output
    of an American at 1/10th the cost then it's in the interests of the
    company and the consumer that the work be done in Mexico.  The tough
    part is the Americans who lose jobs.  Ideally they should share,
    somehow, in the extra profits made by their company.
    
    But, if a trained American with a machine (capital investment) has the
    output of 100 Mexicans then the job will logically stay in the US.
    
    That's basically what has happened around the world as the labor
    intensive jobs have moved to the lowest cost countries and the
    others have flowed to those countries having brains and capital.
    
    I guess one needs to choose in which direction one would rather head. 
    If it's labor then close the borders.  If it's brains and capital then
    do something practical about that - like tax deductions for higher
    education, stop tax on interests on savings, do not encourage
    borrowings (like home mortages - although I would personally hate
    that).
    
    Axel
     

    RE: .194
    
    > Competing with a foreign work force that makes 50 cents an hour
    > will in time, lower our standard of living, and raise theirs when
    > enough time passes.   They will work their way towards, say 2 bucks
    > an hour, and we will work our way to 2 bucks an hour in the future
    > balanced/free trade/global economy world.
    
    We won't do this if we aren't doing the SAME JOBS they're doing.
    
    If they do the unskilled jobs (for American companies as well as
    other companies), then products cost less to make and we can buy
    them more easily.
    
    If we're doing DIFFERENT JOBS (and doing what we do best, as DougO
    said), then our salaries won't go down to meet the salaries of
    unskilled jobs.  Why on earth would they??
    
    > You wanta make 2 bucks an hour  say,  15 years from now ???
    
    No.  Why should anyone believe that this will happen?

    
    .186
    
    thanks madman!!

      ...and as Mexico tools up ( high ouput machine/cap investment )
     PLUS  low wages......we're screwed.
    

    Sure we (er, you) are exporting low paid jobs now, but simultaneously
    increasing the buying power and *your potential market* in other
    countries.  The trick will be to ensure that you get those markets
    as they emerge and produce goods and services that they want to
    buy, are able to buy, and still can't produce locally at a reasonable
    cost.

    re: Note 654.198 by MKOTS3::FLATHERS
    
     Bull.  Look at Digital for example. We tooled up a plant to the
    hilt, and all we got out of it was huge scrap rates, HUGE. Guess what?
    It got shut down.

    Now, if you're intending to open a pencil factory then that's a
    different story.

    
       don't assume that we will always be doing different work.
    
      right now, it's unskilled.   tomorrow, it might be YOUR HIGH
    TECH JOB.
    
      

    They're too far behind in providing a skilled workforce. Unless the US
    has decided that it won't fund education anymore, I don't think this is
    a real threat.

      I agree, is not a real threat.     Yet !
    

    
    | To summarize, we compete within a global free trade environment by
    | specializing in the things we do better than anybody else, just
    | like everybody else does.
    
    the hard part of this problem is that "the things we do better"
    does not really cut across class boundaries.  last night i heard
    someone (alexander or dole) claim that losses in manufacturing
    were offset by gains in other companies and they cited oracle and
    microsoft.  software development is an area that we do better but
    it requires educated, skilled, and talented people.  it also 
    does not pull in a large segment of semi-skilled workers. one wonders
    whether the current advantages of infrastructure that the u.s.
    enjoy will offset the loss of manufacturing jobs.  i don't
    agree with buchanan's approach, but he has raised an important
    issue for a part of an electorate that needs to be heard.
    
    
       
     

    "raised an issue"?  The heck he 'raised' it.  Its the economy, stupid,
    remember how Clinton beat Bush?  Attempting to understand the way we
    fit and can compete in the global economy has been an issue for many of
    us for years.  What Buchanan has done is take a half-baked
    understanding of the issue, found a few disenfranchised and ignorant
    constituencies, and crafted a populistic but deceitful message designed
    to win votes.  yes, its an important issue.  That's one of the reasons
    some of us are so resentful of the way Pat has made his contribution to
    the debate- by convincing people that there are simple solutions and
    that we can wave a border fence at the problem and magically return to
    the 50s when we had the only integrated manufacturing economy in the
    world.  Well, we can't, Pat is lying, and he damned right the long
    knives are out for him.  He'd take the economy down the tubes.
    
    DougO

re: .202

	Repubs have already cut education, so look out!

    Hank, as you can see, Buchanan's ideas simply don't hold up under
    scrutiny.

    He's the political equivalent of 'junk food' - what he says may seem
    tasty (and simpler to consume) at first, but the nutritional content
    of his offering is sorely lacking.

    
    >Hank, as you can see, Buchanan's ideas simply don't hold up under
    >scrutiny.
    
    Whos???? The boxrabble's?????
    
    
    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
    

    Hey Andy - long time no see.
    
    Buchanan's ideas don't seem to be holding up in ANY of the arenas
    I've seen them scrutinized in the past few weeks.

    Okay...so we got junk food on the right and I feel your pain on the
    left!  Whom do we pick!?

     hhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa  hhhhhhhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaaaaa
    
     good one Jack !
    
    

    
    >Buchanan's ideas don't seem to be holding up in ANY of the arenas
    >I've seen them scrutinized in the past few weeks.
    
    So (without upseting DougO too much)... why did so many people vote for
    him in NH... He also finished 2nd in the Iowa caucus...
    
    
     Was they sheep??  Blinded by the light??? Lack of scrutiny by these
    people??
    
     What???
    

    Why did people vote for Pat?
    
    I already answered that.  He crafted a careful message that
    definately corresponds to certain constituencies' perceptions,
    proposing feel-good solutions.  
    
    They also voted for Pat to express disgust for the lack of anyone else
    in the GOP primaries who seemed to represent real voter concerns and
    issues.  Pat does seem to have the common touch, as long as you're in
    one of the constituencies to which he is trying to appeal.  The rest of
    the bunch have as much charisma, between them, as a chewed-up old boot.
    
    DougO

	I predict Jack Martin will apologize before Fried-day is done.

    
 >   Buchanan's ideas don't seem to be holding up in ANY of the arenas
 >   I've seen them scrutinized in the past few weeks.


     So far they've done OK in the arena of the ballot box.



 Jim

    If anyone wonders what Pat Buchanan's policies would actually do,
    try something.

    Try thinking about what would happen to Digital Equipment Corporation
    in particular.

    We have manufacturing sites overseas.  What would happen to them?
    Would Digital have to shut them down, or would Digital simply be
    disallowed by law to open new manufacturing sites anywhere outside
    of the United States from now on?  (If we had to start new
    manufacturing sites in the U.S., what would they cost Digital?)

    We spent YEARS trying to get back to being profitable.  It's a
    fragile business to try to keep moving forward and instill confidence
    in our chances for the future.  But we did it!  Our stock was back
    up as high as $74+ again today.  (I remember when it was $18.)

    If Buchanan is ever in a position to put up his little fences (with
    a hearty 'SCREW YOU' to the rest of the world), we'll get a handy
    'UP YOURS, TOO' back from the world with high tariffs on DIGITAL
    products (and everything else) as we try to sell them around the world.

    Does anyone here honestly think Digital would survive if this country 
    were suddenly cut off from the rest of the world?  It was hard enough
    to make it back without such limitations on our involvement in the
    worlds' markets.  Success in this business is still too fragile (for
    all of us.)

    But Suzanne,
    
    there will always be jobs for you and me in the cotton mills.  Who
    should care about brown lung?
    
    

    Well, at one point in my life, I spoke three languages.
    
    Sounds like time to brush up on all three (along with finishing
    my Masters degree in Computer Science as soon as possible.)  :)

    Seriously, folks - what (precisely) would Buchanan's policies
    do to Digital?
    
    Would Digital survive?
    
    (By the way, this may all be moot since Buchanan does not seem to
    be leading in any of the other states I've seen so far.)

    We sell 60% of our goods and services outside the USA.  If Pat puts up
    trade barriers, Europe will retaliate.  As we don't buy many of their
    computers and the industry trend towards open systems is much stronger
    in Europe, we will lose bigtime.
    
    Colin
    

    > So far they've done OK in the arena of the ballot box.
    
    So people keep saying.  last night I looked at the figures and his
    actual capture of votes is realtively small.  Yes, he got 28% of the
    republican vote, but the other 72% went to other ideas and the Dems got
    over 80,000.  Expressed as a percentage of all those who voted, only about
    12% to 15% (a guess) went for him as far as I can make out.  Expressed
    as a percentage of the total electorate, the figure is even smaller.
    
    I don't think this indicates that New Hampshire loves Pat.
    
    Colin
    

Yes, but "expressed as a percentage of the total electorate", only 17%
of the entire country loved Slick in November '92, yet the Demo-libs
keep complaining to this day that that's an invalid argument.

    That is true.  The same argument is frequently used on the
    Republican side to support the view that Clinton does not have a
    mandate.  This observation does not negate my point that Buchanan's
    ideas have little support in NH. 

A viewpoint upon which I tend to agree with you. I was only pointing out
the similarity for the benefit of the demo-libs following the discussion
in the hope that if they choose to fly that banner, they'll recognize the
need to revalidate the same position when leveled against their hero.

Prediction: Pat Buchanan will be done in by the opposition of women.

Analysis of the New Hampshire primary vote reveals a huge gender gap in 
the support for him. Men favored him but women were much less likely to vote
for him.

This is not surprising, given his rabid stand against women's freedom to 
make their own choice about abortion.

It may mean the end of the Republicans' cynical so-called "big tent" strategy.
For years, the Republican party has ballyhooed the "big tent" which could 
shelter people of many views. In practice this meant, as in 1992, putting an
anti-choice plank in the platform and then nominating a candidate who was
vague or lukewarm about it. Where, after all, were the anti-choice activists
to go in '92? George Bush may have been wishy-washy on the issue but at least
the plank was in the platform. There wasn't any doubt about where Bill 
Clinton and the Democrats stand. 

Now, with Buchanan, there's no doubt: He'll push for legislation to end a
woman's right to make up her own mind on abortion. 

It's another case where the cynical strategy of playing to the extremists in 
every arena is coming home to roost. The Republicans for years have sown the
wind -- now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

> -- now they are going to reap the whirlwind.

IF and only if Pat exits San Diego as the victor. Since this is the 
"Predictions" topic, I'll predict that that will never happen. He will 
be politically "done in" long before he ever gets to San Diego. My worst
fear is that he'll make himself a 3rd party candidate.

    
    I heard on the news yesterday that Pat would't start a run for
    president outside of the Republican party...

    ...but he also said he couldn't support anyone who engaged in "calling 
    him names."
    
    Wonder what name? "Nut" comes to mind...
    
    

    
    
    <------
    
    He has stated that if he doesn't win the GOP nomination, he will
    support **NO ONE**

    
    What, take his ball and go home?  What a team player.
    

    
    
    No deb... that's not the reason...
    
    The article stated that he feels none of the candidates want to stick
    to, and debate him on the issues... He feels they would rather
    concentrate on personal attacks and negative ads. He feels that he
    would be a hypocrite to support the winner for these reasons.
    
    hth
    

    
>    He has stated that if he doesn't win the GOP nomination, he will
>    support **NO ONE**


  you mean like Ted Kennedy when Jimmy Carter won the nomination?




 Jim

    Saw a question and answer forum in C-Spam last night (typo on poipus).
    Forbes actually came off pretty well, but I think he was edged out by
    Buchanan- just going on audience reaction. 
    
    My personal opinion was that Forbes did not "look" very presidential,
    but may have edged out Buchanan with his answers.  
    
    Dornan was there, too, and made a decent showing.  The other guy
    (forget his name) got boo'd a lot.  
    
    
    -steve

 I saw part of that debate last night and thought the same about Forbes..
 Buchanan was kinda funny with his "Lamar..welcome to crossfire" stuff.




 Jim

 Z   Now, with Buchanan, there's no doubt: He'll push for legislation to end
 Z   a woman's right to make up her own mind on abortion. 
    
    That may be but what I think he will initially try to do is erode Roe
    v. Wade in some way.  Roe v. Wade was a sham to begin with anyway so
    what's the diff?

    re: -1
    
    A sham in what way?
    

Here we go again...

Buchannan and Roe vs. Wade....
Buchannan and school prayer...
Buchannan and family values...

Somehow with Buchannan the discussion continues to be
the CR's agenda. 


As far as economics go, Buchannan did take a break from
the Mexican border yesterday and pointed at the Japanese. 
Have to find somebody to blame for my economic difficulties. 
Who's next Haiti?

    
    >Who's next Haiti?
    
    
    
     I predict you need to buy a Ronco Comma Insterter...
    
    
    hth
    

    perhaps having a Haiti is like having some sort of hairy piss fit?

>     I predict you need to buy a Ronco Comma Insterter...

And you need the Ronco Excess Letter Remover.

    
    
    <------
    
    They on sale this week???
    

	I find it ironic that Pat bUCanan is being hit with the very
same label making propaganda machine he helped to create.  The
conservative name calling, labeling and blame it on the "_____".

	If Pat bUChanan splits the party badly and doesn't win the
nomination, I kind of expect something like:


WARNING: THIS IS NOT REAL.  IT COULD BE IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT ISN'T YET.
**********************************************************************
THIS IS NOT REAL: (YET):

		This morning on the Today show, the RNC spokesperson,
         Haley Barbour said that he had uncovered a "LIBERAL MEDIA"
         consipiracy to support the democrats.  Pat bUChanan is a
         "LIBERAL MEDIA" operative. He had been planted in the
         conservative republican party movement for more than 30
         years.  In the mid 60's the "liberal media" believed that the
         conservatives would come to power and planted him in the
         movement. Senator D'Amato has issued a subpena for papers from
         Hillary Clinton  that outline how she planned this with the
         "liberal media" in the mid 60's.  To prove his claim, Haley
         Barbour and the RNC have produced 100 hours of instances from
         "Crossfire" that show how Pat bUCanan is actually a liberal.
         Rush Bimbo is telling his viewers to be frightened of the
         scare tactics the liberal Buchanan is using.  To get this
         message out, Haley Barbour said that the RNC will get every
         radio station and every TV station in the world to repeat
         this nonstop daily until the election.

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

	>What Buchanan has done is take a half-baked
    	>understanding of the issue, found a few disenfranchised and ignorant
    	>constituencies, and crafted a populistic but deceitful message designed
    	>to win votes. 

	DougO, I appreciate your replies and those of others, 
	but I really have to take issue with some of what you wrote.
	I'd like to use your statements above to attempt to make my point.
	Please note I mean nothing personal. But what you wrote is
	something I hear a lot and I'd like to address it. So please
	consider my use of "you" as generic. Thanks.

	You dismiss those who have a genuine fear of losing their jobs
	as  "disenfranchised and ignorant". Not only do I disagree but I
	find this view offensive, condescending and I dare say, smacking of
	elitist disdain for those less fortunate. A fine example of
	the rhetoric being directed at Buchanan and those who have voted for
	him. This from the same people claiming Buchanan is the one spreading 
	intolerance and hatred.

	(BTW, whatever happened to liberal compassion anyhow?)

	I think a very large segment of the population shares
	the view that they may not have a job tomorrow.
	Downsizing is the corporate mantra of the 90's.
	ATT, Digital, IBM, Raytheon, etc.....have gotten rid of thousands
	and thousands of jobs. Raytheon is a great example
	of corporate hypocricy; record profits while at the same time
	enforcing a wage freeze on non-exempt personel, engaging in
	layoffs and demanding and receiving concessions from their union.

	Many many people are worried about their future and all of
	the intellectual talk about the long term affects of GATT and
	NAFTA do nothing to help the person who has just lost
	their job or who is worried sick about whether or not they'll	
	have a job tomorrow. And I dare say the number of americans
	feeling this anxiety about their future is larger than
	most realize. Especially while these same people, trying to
	survive see what, $50 billion dollars sent to Mexico to bail them
	out? Incredible amounts of money (Billions of course) being delivered
	to other countries in the guise of foreign aid? Wall street surging
	for reasons that escape them; economists telling them about
	a recovery that no one recognizes?? And the only compassion and help
	they'll receive from liberals is once they've gone bankrupt
	and end up receiving welfare. Great alternative, that!

	Who are these people going to turn to? Who is out there representing
	their vary valid fears about the future? Simple things like
	paying the mortgage, maybe just maybe sending a child to college,
	hell, just keeping up with the bills? Who represents them?????
	Clinton? The man who bragged at a focus group that he was
	responsible for the creation of millions of jobs? (Interesting
	sidenote: a woman at the focus group was asked about that statement
	and she replied that he was right; she has 3 of those jobs).
	Clinton, the president that gave us a $225 Billion dollar tax hike?
	Dole? The candidate that expressed surprise that this was even
	an [important] issue with the voters? Alexander, who turned a dollar
	into a few hundred thousand? Forbes who has never had to worry
	about anything except his next dividend check? 

		Further addressing that question, please allow 
	me to quote from a Mike Barnical column from yesterdays Globe
	titled "They're missing the point". It's a column about the 96
	campaign and why people [may be] supporting Buchanan.
	
		"These same politicians who have been on the same, secure
	public payroll for decades? The candidates for president
	who spent the winter telling voters it's essential to balance
	the budget by the year 2003 while you were unable to come up with
	your daugters spring tuition?"
	
		"People in politics refer to this topic as "the economy".
	The media describe it in a variety of terms, like fear, alienation,
	resentment, or economic insecurity."

		"But you know better. You know that's life."

		And indeed it is for many americans. Thankfully
	at least one candidate has stated that he hears them and
	that he'll represent them. Sure, dismiss them as ignorant,
	resentful, angry, alienated and intolerant. Dismiss them
	as a small disenfranchised segment of the population filled
	with hate. But while doing so, ask yourself what this accomplishes
	and how this separates you from the candidate [and those
	who support him] who you are so eager to demonize and discard.

		

						Hank 

    Not intended to drag the CR into this at all.  Abortion should be left
    up to the discretion of the individual states, not the federal
    government.  The privacy issue is a farce in regards to abortion since
    there are two parents involved.
    

  dougo,

  pipe down and don't falsely align me with
  buchanan or his policies.

  actually my note was really intended to
  float a question your way since i respect
  your opinions especially in the area of 
  free trade.   query: do you really
  think there is any systemic mechanism that
  can seriously address the employment and 
  economic concerns of those who are at the
  low end of the employment ladder (those who
  lack either talent or education and who are
  competing with people in the third world.)
  a lot of educated people think that this is
  an intractable problem and basically resort
  to economic triage.  
  
  the point i was making which seemed
  to be lost on you is that the political vacumn will
  find some home during each election cycle if it 
  is not taken seriously by those running 
  the show.  the fact that it is making political 
  headway in the republican party is simply an 
  artifact of the presidential primary season
  where politics in the non-incumbent party are
  naturally more volatile.  i think it is very
  dangerous not to have a political outlet for
  this discussion and i think the establishment
  coming down on buchanan could backfire.  let
  the man have his say and let him lose on the
  issues of free trade.  

  btw this is a predictions note:

  delaware:  forbes   (first)
             buchanan (second)
             dole     (third)

  dakotas:   dole      (first)
             buchanan  (second)
             alexander (third)

  arizona:   buchanan (first)
             forbes   (second)
             dole     (third)
             
  say goodnight to lamar.  he was terrible in
  the arizona debates. 


 

  

 re .243

 
  applause!

  .243  So Hank, do you view the concerns expressed here around the
	perils of isolationism as unwarranted?

    Di:
    
    I'll answer until Hank returns.  To me, everyone was ganging up on
    Forbes when he rose in the polls...now they attacK Pat "personally"
    when his star is rising.  There is no  easier way to kill off PB's
    chances but to compare him to everythIng from Hitler, MUssolini, Nixon,
    aNd the Aniti-christ.  
    
    I'll talk issues with 'almost' anyone; slinging mud isn't appealing.
    
    BTW, PB wants to put 'common sense' back into our foreign affairs
    dealings..."ISOLATIONISM"...NO!

    
>    I'll talk issues with 'almost' anyone; slinging mud isn't appealing.

    yeah, i know that.  i was just asking Hank what he thought about
    the non-mud-slinging views expressed by Suzanne, DougO, etc. around
    PB's quasi-isolationist stance.

    RE: .243  Hank

    Believe it or not, I do see what you're saying.  The people you
    mentioned WANT a candidate who is concerned about their problems.

    The sad thing is that Buchanan has gotten their support although
    he does not have a solution for their problems.  He only expresses
    concern combined with simplistic 'solutions' that sound emotionally
    satisfying (until people start talking about what would REALLY HAPPEN
    if Buchanan's policies were put into effect.)

    Does it make a difference to you to know that Digital would probably
    go out of business entirely if Buchanan's policies were enacted?

    Will it help some guy to pay his daughter's tuition if you and I
    (along with everyone else at Digital) lost this entire company (not
    to mention the Digital stock that many of us still hold)?

    Buchanan does not have the answers.  What he proposes would make things
    so much worse, it's unbelievable.  

    Don't take our word for it, though.  As I said earlier, just try to
    imagine the impact that his policies would have on DIGITAL.  Think
    about how much business we do in the world (and how fragile our
    success has been in the past year or so.)

    What would Buchanan's policies do to your life in particular (as a
    Digital employee)?
    
    Would you vote for someone who might put Digital out of business?

    
    > So Hank, do you view the concerns expressed here around the
    > perils of isolationism as unwarranted?
    
      No. But I tend to see more than concerns being expressed.
      I see a cavalier attitude about the genuine concerns of many
      american workers if not a general disregard.
    
      As for isolationism...I have the following quote from Pat Buchanan
      on free trade.
      
    	"Rather than making 'global free trade' a golden calf which
    we all bow down to, and worship, all trade deals should be judged by
    whether: a) they maintain U.S. sovereignty, b) they protect vital
    economic interests and c) they ensure a rising standard of living for
    all our workers. We must stop sacrificing American jobs on the altars of
    transnational corporations whose sole loyalty is to the bottom line".
    "On the Issues" by Pat Buchanan
    
       Is that truly isolationism?
    
    						Hank
    
    
    
    
    
    

 Please explain how Buchanan's policies would put Digital out of existance.




 Jim

    .243
    
    hank, an excellent reply.  many people are worried about
    their jobs, there's no doubt about it.  running scared and
    trying to keep their households together.  but if these 
    people think that pat buchanan _truly_ speaks for them,
    i fear they will be terribly betrayed.  he wants their
    votes, nothing else.

      I've got two concerns about Buchanon...
    
    1)This trade thing.
      Does he want to suppress trade where it is really free?  By free
      I would include a Mexican company that manufactures something
      cheaper because their labor is cheaper.  This stuff ultimately
      evens out.  I mean, if a company makes a widget for less amount
      of money because its labor is cheaper and another company makes
      it for more money because its labor is more expensive, then the
      former company will sell it for less.  Lets say this widget is
      a useful part for a product an American company makes.  Does
      this American company have to buy the more expensive widget?
      How does this then effect their ability to manufacture most
      efficiently (i.e. inexpensively)????
    
      If Buchanon wants to suppress this kind of trade, I have a REAL
      problem with that, BUT if he is really after unfair trade, than
      I don't.  I would consider unfair trade to be like the following.
      Some company makes a product for far less because it doesn't
      finance the necessary antipollutant equipment for satisfying
      agreed upon standards.  Buying from said company promotes their
      unlawful practises, further finances them for greater manufacturing,
      and tacitly promotes an unlawful spread of pollution.
    
      Another company makes a product that is in a country that time and
      time again resists the inflow of American products.  This other 
      country has tariffs and other means of suppressing American products
      from making any inroads.
    
      Anyway, if Buchanon's beef is with both trading examples, I have a
      serious problem with him.  If its only with the second type, I have
      a serious problem with anyone who thinks these trading practises 
      ought to be permitted and not suppressed.
    
      So which is it?  Which type is he against?  Both?  Or just the second
      type?
    
      The other thing I'm concerned about is if he cozies up a bit much to
      the Christian Coalition as I believe their agenda goes beyond the
      separation of church and state,  Things like wanting Sunday laws and
      so forth.  (As if a Sunday law falls under the category of civil 
      law and not personal conviction between a person and his God).
    
      How do you think he is regarding his respect for the separation of
      church and state?
    
    							Tony
                                                                 

    .243
    
    I'm puzzled.  When was there ever security of employment short of
    tenured jobs?  Are you saying that Pat's supporters beleive that he
    will deliver security of employment via the metodologies that he has
    proposed.  If true, that position seems to be way way from mainstream
    Republican thought.
    
    The market-protected nationalised industries in Europe already did what
    proposes.  They failed on all counts while sucking down billions
    of dollars in Gov't funding.
    
    Colin
    
    
    

I predict that "Buchanan" will continue to be misspelled in this topic.

    On an' on an' on.

    re: .244
    
    Abortion should be left up to the states? How about leaving it up to
    the person who's having the baby?
    
    And I don't think the privacy issue is farce just because there are two
    parents involved. Parents (or potential parents) making a decision is a
    lot different from your state legislature making the decision. And
    again, only one person is having the baby.
    
    But...not to rathole on this very emotional issue: The results from New
    Hampshire may predict what will happen elsewhere. American women (a
    large majority of them, anyway) won't buy Patrick Buchanan's position.
    
    And as for the argument that Buchanan speaks for those in very real
    fear of losing their jobs in the current downsizing-crazed economy. 
    He's not being attacked because he gives voice to those fears and
    anxieties; he's being attacked because he plays on those fears with
    simplistic notions that appeal to the not-very-well-hidden streak of
    jingoism in American society.
    
    And so a prediction: If Corporate America (which usually goes down the
    line for Republicans) feels that Buchanan is really going to get the
    nomination, or if he really gets the nomination and has a chance to put
    his xenophobic anti-free-trade stands into practice, Bill Clinton will
    need a lot of big baskets to catch all the corporate PAC money that
    will come his way...
                        

      There is an abortion topic.
    
      Some people honestly believe that fetuses have legal rights and
      that the basis for them is a civil and not a spiritual matter.
      They also happen to believe that there are conflicting rights
      here (fetuses right to live versus mother's right to privacy)
      and that the fetuses right to live supercedes.
    
      The reality of the existence of conflicting rights is not an
      impossibility.  For example, a certain religion may practise
      human sacrifices.  In this case the conflict of free expression
      of religion/separation of church and state and of the right of
      individuals to not be murdered.
    
      I have tried to state the above in a purely logical way, but I don't
      mind saying that anyone who is pro-choice and whose argument com-
      pletely leaves out at least the hypothetical that a fetus just might
      have legal rights under civil jurisdiction and that this can be a
      situation of conflicting rights is an incompetent one.
    
      						Tony

 Z   Abortion should be left up to the states? How about leaving it up to
 Z   the person who's having the baby?
    
    Yes, leave it up to the states..just like the states determine what you
    are going to do with your personal money via taxation.  Doesn't seem
    like I too much choice in that area does it?  Bring it to 20!

    
      By the way, after thanking Phil H. for posting the primary schedule
     in 552.42, I have to say he got the Massachusetts primary date
     wring - it is March 5.  They changed it so that all 5 remaining
     New England states would have their primaries on the same day,
     calling it the "Yankee day".  But since other states will also join
     in then, even the effect of the 5 together will be diluted.  The
     delegate totals are going to start appearing on the news now.
    
      Any word of early exit poll results from the Diamond State today ?
    
      bb

 got the date wring? 

    
      Never wrung a date.
    
      bb

    Getting back to concerns about things like corporate layoffs...

    We can all agree that layoffs are sad (and difficult) for everyone,
    but what is the alternative?  Does anyone sincerely believe that
    layoffs should become illegal?  What good would this do?

    It wouldn't save jobs, ultimately.  Entire companies would go under
    if they couldn't take drastic measures to return to profitability.

    No one would be helped if entire industries fell in ruins.

    So we have a candidate who talks about such things.  Anyone can bring
    up such subjects.  If he doesn't have answers that will help, why vote
    for him because he knows how to make good conversation?

Layoffs because the company is hurting is one thing
but layoffs while the CEO/upper management suck
millions out of the company is yet another. 

Isn't it something like executives in:

Japan make 10 * the average employee
Europe     40*
USA       100*


If Pat is looking for a great populist theme he 
should throw in the bit about that "sucking sound"
within corporate hierarchy.

 re .265



 He has spoken about that.

    >pipe down and don't falsely align me with buchanan or his policies.
    
    Sorry, my rhetorical allusion ("it's the economy, stupid") should have
    had quotes around it the *first* time I used it- solely as a reminder
    of the '92 campaign.  Without the quotes it appears to be directed at
    you- not what I'd intended.  Sorry.
    
    I'm aware of your larger point, that there is still, amidst an economic
    recovery now more than 5 years long, an uneasiness among those I
    described in an earlier message as disenfranchised.  Hank upbraids me
    for elitism when I throw in "and stupid", but he misreads me- I don't
    blame the disenfranchised, only those stupid enough to believe that Pat
    can cure what ails them.  I'll address that when I answer him.  But
    after I inadvertantly backhanded you with the above mistake, at the
    very least your point deserved acknowledgement.  Yes, the discontent is
    there, and yes, Pat is giving it political expression.  Perot did much
    the same, seems to me, though he aimed for a different constituency.
    
    One presumes that speaking to the concerns of the voters doesn't
    require whitewashing the difficulties of solving the problems, as 
    both Perot and Buchanan, in my opinion, have done.
    
    DougO

    	re .243 and .251, Hank-
    
	>> What Buchanan has done is take a half-baked understanding of 
	>> the issue, found a few disenfranchised and ignorant constitu-
	>> encies, and crafted a populistic but deceitful message designed
	>> to win votes. 

	> You dismiss those who have a genuine fear of losing their jobs
	> as  "disenfranchised and ignorant". Not only do I disagree but I
	> find this view offensive, condescending and I dare say, smacking of
	> elitist disdain for those less fortunate.
	> [...]
	> (BTW, whatever happened to liberal compassion anyhow?)

	Your compassion does you credit, Hank, but your sensitivity meter
	needs recalibration.  Where you read dismissal of the disenfranchised
	you should be seeing acknowledgement of their situation- if there's
	dismissal in my words it is for their poor judgement in messiahs.
	I can full well acknowledge that there are disenfranchised constitu-
	encies out there to whom no politician is paying heed, and who the 
	economic recovery seems to be ignoring.  But the price of ignorant 
	support to a demagogue will hurt them worse than anyone else- if the 
	economic recovery hasn't helped them, what will a Buchanan trade war/
	economic collapse do to them?  I despise Buchanan for lying to such.

	> Many many people are worried about their future and all of
	> the intellectual talk about the long term affects of GATT and
	> NAFTA do nothing to help the person who has just lost
	> their job or who is worried sick about whether or not they'll	
	> have a job tomorrow.  

	"intellectual talk" still seems to me to be more appropriate than
	threatening a trade war in the ill-considered attempt to preserve 
	uncompetitive jobs.  The economics of the case won't bow down to
	Pat's bluster, and the economy of the United States is not robust
	enough to change the way the world works.  If Buchanan gets his way,
	there'll be far *more* people feeling "anxiety" about their future.
	Including me.  Seriously, Buchanan's medicine will kill the patient.

	> Especially while these same people, trying to survive see what, 
	> $50 billion dollars sent to Mexico to bail them out? 

	A loan.  A question of finance.  When we're $5T in debt, this
	requires a sense of proportion.  It doesn't sound like you have it.
	Not that I don't think people have a right to raise their eyebrows
	at such a loan guarantee.  But what it takes is a simple explanation
	that ensuring Mexico meets its bond obligations with such a loan is
	a heckuva lot simpler than watching them default and touch off
	another Latin American bad debt crisis, leading to a wasted decade
	and fueling the poverty and illegral immigrant problems.  We just
	went through that!  Letting it happen again when it can be easily
	prevented would be stupid!

	> Incredible amounts of money (Billions of course) being delivered 
	> to other countries in the guise of foreign aid? 

	"guise"?  It *is* foreign aid.  And only two countries get money
	in the $B range, Israel and Egypt, and they're both barely plural.
	I think Israel got $3.6B and Egypt $2.4B last year, and that's
	about 70% of the total aid budget.  This is less than the annual
	budget of a big city.  Do people not know these basic facts?

	> Wall street surging for reasons that escape them; economists 
	> telling them about a recovery that no one recognizes?? 

	No one?  I can only speak locally.  California, for the first time
	since WWII (seven previous recessions) did *not* lead the way out
	of the Bush recession.  The golden state took a much bigger hit in
	terms of losing defense industry jobs and military bases and their
	support contributions to the local economy and it hurt us for years
	beyond any other region.  Our unemployment rate was still over 9%
	a year ago.  But remarkable things happened within the last year.
	Wilson managed to get some of the worst business-punishment taxes
	removed from the books, and some of the successful hi-tech businesses
	stopped automatically moving new investments out of state.  Better,
	the recovery in the rest of the country freed up hi-tech capital
	investment, and that has revitalized one of our major sectors- and
	best of all, that has included several hundred thousands of laid-off
	aerospace and other defense workers.  California is ripping and the
	unemployment has fallen more than two points this year.  Housing
	market is still soft- not every sector is flush yet- but nobody is
	disputing that the recovery has finally come to California.  Perhaps
	the no-ones you speak of don't remember how bad it was four years ago,
	when nationwide unemployment was nearly 9%, in some places over 11%!
	People who don't know its a recovery, Hank, are not well informed.
	My answer is to inform them.  Buchanan's answer is to pander to their 
	fears.  Contemptible.

	>	"But you know better. You know that's life."
	>
	>	And indeed it is for many americans. Thankfully
	> at least one candidate has stated that he hears them and
	> that he'll represent them. 

	That's what he says.  What his plans mean to the rest of us
	is the real thing that should frighten them.

	> Sure, dismiss them as ignorant, resentful, angry, alienated and 
	> intolerant. Dismiss them as a small disenfranchised segment of 
	> the population filled with hate. 

	ignorant if they believe Pat's lies.  resentful, angry, alienated,
	I'm all of those myself.  intolerant, only those who want Pat's
	god in their classrooms and the first amendment in tatters.  small,
	I can only hope, if they're truly filled with hate.  But I don't
	dismiss them.  Populists have a long and scary role in American
	politics. 

	> But while doing so, ask yourself what this accomplishes
	> and how this separates you from the candidate [and those
	> who support him] who you are so eager to demonize and discard.

	What I do is try to use intelligence and fact to combat their 
	inherent weaknesses.  The republic demands this of all who are
	capable.  There is nothing wrong with the people to whom Pat
	appeals.  What is wrong is that he is appealing to what's worst
	and lowest within them- fear and ignorance.  I'd prefer to point
	out that not only is Pat lying to them, but that while the world
	is indeed a complex and scary place, we are among the strongest
	and most prosperous nations on earth, we got there by the strength
	and hard work of millions of individuals, and we must continue to
	build upon that.  You ask me about liberal compassion...I ask you
	whatever happened to yankee ingenuity?

	> As for isolationism...I have the following quote from Pat 
	> Buchanan on free trade.
	>
    	> "Rather than making 'global free trade' a golden calf which we 
	> all bow down to, and worship, all trade deals should be judged by
	> whether: a) they maintain U.S. sovereignty, b) they protect vital
	> economic interests and c) they ensure a rising standard of living 
	> for all our workers. We must stop sacrificing American jobs on the 
	> altars of transnational corporations whose sole loyalty is to the 
	> bottom line".
	>			"On the Issues" by Pat Buchanan
	>
	> Is that truly isolationism?

	What that is, Hank, is demagoguery.  Notice he can't be BOTHERED
	to address free trade on its own merits.  No, he waves his religious
	credentials around ("golden calf" imagery) to dismiss the multitudes
	of arguments for free trade without ever taking them on.  There's a
	reason for that.  He can't win the argument against free trade if
	he actually enters into economic arguments.  So he blusters right
	on past, proposing nice-sounding but carefully vague arguments to
	make his listeners feel good.  Once you start to examine them, though,
	they come apart.  Take "c" - "ensure a rising standard of living for 
	all our workers."  huh?  Ensure?  If nobody wants to buy what we're 
	selling, how do you "ensure" any such thing?  Markets don't work that 
	way.  If what we're selling isn't competitive, then no trade agreement
	can 'ensure' the bs Pat is selling.  Take "b" - just what does Pat 
	think our vital economic interests are?  Though imports and exports
	are still less than 20% of our total economy, that's still a fairly
	significant amount.  Does Pat think we can throw up huge protectionist
	barriers and yet retain access to the markets that support those
	"vital economic interests"?  Does he want to explain to the shippers
	and jobbers of the longshoremen's union why their ports are idle, why
	there's no money to be made unloading US imports or loading exports?
	Which jobs does Buchanan think he's protecting? 

	And as for "a" - protecting our sovereignty- I'm reminded of Samuel
	Johnson's notion that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
	More feel-good nostrums from the demagogue.

	Sorry Hank- the more you tell me about Buchanan the worse he looks.

	DougO

    -1 What a huge prediction!!

    
      By the way, the economy isn't doing very well.  You will recall
     that in the 1991 recession, GDP fell 1%, followed by a small rise
     in 1992, a good one in 1993, 3.5% in 1994.  The figures for 1995
     show 2.1%, and for the last quarter, it was an annual rate of 0.9%.
     Few economists think the first quarter of 1996 will be better than
     that - indeed we could have a "technical recession" this year,
     defined as 2 consecutive falling quarters, but if so, it will be
     very mild.  Inflation is near nothing, and the fed is going to
     lower rates this spring.  Profits will generally be anemic, but
     the market will do well because bond returns are near nothing -
     where else can the money go ?  Remember, unemployment is a LAGGING
     indicator.  I expect it to rise late in the year and after the
     election.  Don't expect any raises in this economy - Robert Reich,
     the Secretary of Shirking, said as much.
    
      I don't blame anybody - I think it that the good 92-93-94 was not
     the doing of any government, and the current slowdown is really due
     to foreign situations unrelated to US government.  There is no money
     for stimulative policies.  I doubt any election results will do much.
     We're just due for a sluggish period.  Note that Clinton, rebuffed in
     trying to nominate Rohatyn, backed off and renominated Greenspan for
     a third term, causing smiles in Congress and a sigh of relief on
     Wall Street.  His other two Fed appointments included Alice Rivlin,
     who only a little while ago said she didn't want the job.  The
     nominees are expected to sail through Senate confirmation.  What the
     economy will have to do with the election, is anybody's guess.  If
     we were rational, not much.
    
      bb

    
    Democracy is the process where voters vote for the one person
    who will get all the blame.

    RE: .268  DougO

    Excellent note!!
    
    > Does Pat think we can throw up huge protectionist barriers and yet 
    > retain access to the markets that support those "vital economic 
    > interests"? 

    Apparently, he does.

    Over the weekend, I heard a description (in one of the shows where
    his suggestions were being debated) of how Buchanan's polices are
    supposed to work.  [This came from a very strong SUPPORTER of
    Buchanan's - sorry I don't recall the name of this commentator.]
    The man's statements were along the lines of...

    	"Exports?  We're not against exports.  We want to do all the
    	exporting we can do.  We simply want to put tariffs on the
    	IMports..."

    It's as if they believe that they can impose tariffs without any
    consequences from the rest of the world.  This sounds almost as short-
    sighted as kids who think they can have sex without protection or drive 
    drunk after prom parties without anything bad happening.

    A protectionist US will only help the EEC.

    
    > Does Pat think we can throw up huge protectionist barriers and yet 
    > retain access to the markets that support those "vital economic 
    > interests"? 

          NOT huge protectionist barriers.  Pat's in favor
   of tariffs.  NOT huge tariffs. Just tariffs that favor the USA.

    RE: .274  Flathers

    > Pat's in favor of tariffs.  NOT huge tariffs. Just tariffs that 
    > favor the USA.
                                            
    What does Pat propose to do when other countries put tariffs which 
    DO NOT favor the USA on US products?

    Or does he think the entire world will just say, "Hey, we can't
    put tariffs on US products.  These people are *AMERICANS*, for
    God's sake.  (HELLO!?!?!?!)"

    S_CONLON,
    
       With 275 million Americans with money to spend for imports
    other countries won't cry too much over  small tariffs.
                                           

    What???  You think that changes in the consumer choices of 275 million
    Americans isn't enough to make it a BIG DEAL in other countries if
    we do something to make their products lose market share here???

    If the tariffs are enough to get people to buy MORE American products
    and FEWER foreign products (which would be the whole point of such a
    tariff), then YOU BET other countries will retaliate with tariffs
    which will get people to buy FEWER American products abroad!

    If Pat were to change things enough to have an impact on foreign
    products in this country, it would have a big impact on our ability
    to sell our products in other countries.

    It would be the CONSEQUENCES of our own tariffs on their products.
    Pat doesn't seem to believe in the idea of consequences and he seems
    to be counting on his supporters to dismiss them, too.

    pat likes to say things like "lock and load!!".
    he's so butch.

    
       Suzanne,
    
        Like I said, they'd cry some, but they'd comply.
    
      You make it sound like Buchanan wants to STOP the flow of Hondas
     coming into the USA or something.
    
      I suspect that you and the others who dislike Buchanan will continue
    to twist the truth with your talk of HUGE trade walls, extremist labels
     etc...etc....
    
       well, I've got work to do, so I'll leave you to your games.
    

    
      Actually, tariffs are sort of outmoded - the Japanese barriers
     to entry are much more subtle than that.  And look at the French !!
    
      You can import all the Japanese audio equipment you want, but it
     all has to pass through one town with a small understaffed
     "inspection" office.  I have no doubt the French "inspectors"
     accept gratuities as tokens of esteem...
    
      As to Digital, we already meet local-content requirements in many
     places.  I suspect we'd have to modify our business a bit, but since
     almost nothing we make except Alpha chips is manufactured in the USA,
     a little liaison and transport and we could skirt most tariffs.
    
      The tough problem wouldn't be selling our stuff.  It would be RAMs.
     The Japanese have a monopoly.  But all that amopunts to is a tax on
     memory, the same for us as for our competitors.  Memory prices are
     so subject to vagaries now, I wonder if anybody would notice.
    
      It's no secret that Digital and other multi-nationals would, on the
     whole, benefit from free trade.  It is also no secret that the AFLCIO
     members are big losers from it.  What IS odd is that Buchanan is
     playing to what has traditionally been a Democratic constituency.
    
      It was Democrats, particularly from Detroit, the rustbelt, etc, who
     opposed NAFTA and GATT.
    
      bb

    RE: .279  Flathers

    > Like I said, they'd cry some, but they'd comply.

    Ha.  This sounds like "It doesn't matter if I drive across the
    railroad tracks drunk out of my mind with 5 or 6 of my teenage
    friends in the car.  The train will stop if I don't get across
    in time.  Why worry?"

    It's a bad move and the consequences would be quite severe (for
    everyone) if the move failed.  (And it would!)

    Think of world trade as a big operating system with many parameters.
    It sounds good to think about changing ONE SPECIFIC parameter, but if
    you do it without considering the effect it will have on other params
    and resources, you may end up with a system that won't even boot.

    >    Ha.  This sounds like "It doesn't matter if I drive across the
    >   railroad tracks drunk out of my mind with 5 or 6 of my teenage
    
          Ha, what a lame comparsion. But what the heck, I'll continue
    the thought....
     
      I don't think the top execs back in Japan ( for Honda, Toyota etc..)
    will let the train run over millions of Honda loving Americans with
    cash in their pockets.
    

    Actually, Americans won't HAVE that much cash in our pockets anymore,
    if we put up trade barriers that make the US less profitable overseas.
    Companies which depend on foreign sales would go under.  Companies
    like Digital with a fragile hold on success would lose it.

    Not only that, but...

    If we are pretty much FORCED to buy American products whether they
    cost more than what we're used to paying for things (and if American
    companies are forced to keep jobs in America and have to CHARGE MORE
    for products to cover their additional costs) - even working Americans 
    simply won't have all that much money to spend anymore.

    If companies weren't ALLOWED to do layoffs or send jobs overseas,
    entire companies would fold.  Unemployment would go way up.  (This
    has already happened in Spain, as I understand it, after their
    government forced companies to give employees lifetime contracts.)

    When companies go under, ALL the workers are out of jobs (not just
    some.)

    Think of it this way - if VCRs went back up to $600 to $1000 per
    unit, would they still be part of almost every household?  Or would
    people quit buying new ones?

    If Buchanan's tariffs wouldn't be enough to get people to buy American
    products, then why put up ANY tariffs at all?  It would only anger those
    in a position to put tariffs on our products (and it wouldn't ease the
    trade deficit.)

    If he did what he claims he wants to do, it would mean HUGE PROBLEMS
    for us (and the world.)  If he doesn't really intend to do it, then
    it isn't a good reason to vote for him.

    By the way, Flathers - trains don't have a CHOICE about stopping
    or not stopping when something or someone is on the tracks ahead.

    "There aren't enough brakes in the world" to make a difference
    (as our local paper's headlines wrote a few days ago.)

          <<< Note 654.280 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

>      The tough problem wouldn't be selling our stuff.  It would be RAMs.
>     The Japanese have a monopoly. 

	The Japanese do not have a monopoly on RAM. Two of the world's
	largest producers are Korean. Samsung and Hyundai. Of course,
	Korean DRAMs are already subject to a fairly significant "anti-
	dumping" duty, as are our modules that use these chips.

Jim

 >     Actually, Americans won't HAVE that much cash in our pockets anymore,

          Correct, just ask any unskilled worker today !      


 >    If companies weren't ALLOWED to do layoffs or send jobs overseas,
 >    entire companies would fold.  Unemployment would go way up.  (This
 >    has already happened in Spain, as I understand it, after their
 >    government forced companies to give employees lifetime contracts.)

         Not a fair comparison.  Our 4 week severance by law is a FAR
   cry from lifetime contracts.  Besides, there's a big differenct between
   some trade protection and HUGE trade walls.
   

 >     When companies go under, ALL the workers are out of jobs (not just
 >    some.)

        Companies come and go.  It's always been part of the "life cycle/
  phase" of US companies.  Startup, growth, stagnation, decline. Over and
  over again thru the decades. 

 >    Think of it this way - if VCRs went back up to $600 to $1000 per
 >    unit, would they still be part of almost every household?  Or would
 >    people quit buying new ones?

      This statement would ONLY  be true we cut off trade completely
  and produced/sold/purchased all within our borders. TOTAL isolation.
  TOTAL isolation would produce $1000 VCR's.

    RE: .286  Flathers

    >> Actually, Americans won't HAVE that much cash in our pockets anymore,

    > Correct, just ask any unskilled worker today !      

    Do you think that Pat Buchanan will make unskilled workers have a lot
    MORE money in their pockets?  How much would this raise the prices we
    would have to pay for US products we were pretty much limited to buy?

    >> Think of it this way - if VCRs went back up to $600 to $1000 per
    >> unit, would they still be part of almost every household?  Or would
    >> people quit buying new ones?

    > This statement would ONLY  be true we cut off trade completely
    > and produced/sold/purchased all within our borders. TOTAL isolation.
    > TOTAL isolation would produce $1000 VCR's.

    How much of an 'AMERICA FIRST' attitude would we have to employ BY
    LAW to become almost totally isolated?

    If we no longer had much money to spend and we were keeping many
    foreign products from being able to sell here, at what (precise)
    point would the world tell the U.S. to stick it where the sun don't
    shine?

    Have you ever lived in a foreign country?  Do you realize that even
    our closest allies aren't terribly fond of the United States?  (I mean,
    the way they tease and insult America may be somewhat in jest, but the
    teases and the insults are there anyway, even among our chummiest pals
    - including pals in Europe.)

    I think it's a mistake to presume that the rest of the countries in
    the world would simply ACCEPT it if we employed Buchanan's proposals.
    (Buchanan also wants to cut off ALL foreign aid within 5 years or so.)

    I think we'd get the 'raspberry heard around the world' if we employed
    Buchanan's trade policies.

    
        Suz,
    
       Instead of going on, and on, and on over this, just understand
    that I believe, and many supporters of P.B. believe that there has
    to be a halfway point. = Some protection. NOt total protection.
    
      Feel free to have the last word if you must, but I've got work
     to do.
    
     Jack
    
    

    PB is only as strong as congress...so don't worry about it!

    Well, thanks for telling me your first name (I wasn't trying to annoy
    you by calling you 'Flathers' instead of 'Jack'.)

    I do realize that you sincerely believe that Pat Buchanan's policies
    will help, but I hope you realize that a lot of Republicans AND
    Democrats disagree.

    In fact, disagreeing with Pat Buchanan is one of the only things
    some Republicans and some Democrats CAN agree about in 1996.  :)

    I suspect the debate over Pat Buchanan's suggestions will continue
    long past the November 1996 election (even if he doesn't come close
    to being nominated as the Republican candidate.)  

    So we'll have plenty of opportunities to kick these ideas around
    (so to speak) in the future.

    Cheers,
    Suzanne

If Pat bUChanan is the republican choice, then this could be the first time that
both Liberals and Conservatives both vote Democrat.

    
    >It could happen!!
    
    As much as I don't agree with much of what PB stands for, the less
    painful would be to vote for him...
    
    I seriously believe that if you put a gun to my head and told me to
    vote for Slick, I wouldn't do it...
    

    Others, like Colin Powell, have already stated that they will NOT
    vote for Pat Buchanan if he becomes the Republican nominee.

    Republicans could leave the Presidential part of their ballots untouched
    (or vote for whichever Libertarian candidate is running.)

    A lot of noop Republican votes would help re-elect Bill Clinton, too.

    
    
    Colin Powell = ordinary citizen
    
    Andy Krawiecki = ordinary citizen
    
    
     I guess we cancel each other out then... huh?
    

    Colin Powell is a respected person who (possibly) could be elected
    as President himself someday.

    When a myriad of major news organizations quote him (as major national
    news) as stating OUTRIGHT that he will not vote for Pat Buchanan if PB 
    becomes the Republican nominee, his decision has more impact than yours 
    does, Andy.

    
    
    I beg to differ...
    
    When he steps into the voting booth, he's only allowed to do it
    once...
    
    "impact" is in the eye of the beholder...
    
    He had a chance to cause an impact not too long ago and he chose not
    to... that's his prerogative as an individual and a citizen/voter...
    
     I respect him as an individual and a military leader. I cannot (yet)
    respect him for something he hasn't done or may never do. If he ever
    runs for president and I can scrutinize him and his views better, my
    opinion may change...
    

Re: .296

Sorry Andy, but if CP goes on national TV and says he won't vote for PB, he 
will take many with him. If you go on, wellllllllll.

"who the hell is this guy???   :)

    Considering that NH exit polls showed that more people claimed they
    would have voted for Powell than for any of the available candidates
    [which may or may not be true since Powell didn't go through the
    'negative campaign stuff' the way the others lived through it] -
    I'd say that Colin Powell still has the attention of a great many
    people in this country.
    
    When he says he wouldn't vote for PB as a Republican nominee, his
    statement has an impact on people.

re: .289 (Jack)

>    PB is only as strong as congress...so don't worry about it!

So there's no need to worry about Clinton, right?  Congress keeps
him in check?  

What a laugh, "Vote for PB, we only like half his stuff!"

\john

    If the party goes into San Diego without a clearcut nominee, watch the
    GOP select Colin Powell and Alan Keyes as their ticket for 96.

    But I thought Clinton was "irrelevent"

         <<< Note 654.295 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

>    Colin Powell is a respected person who (possibly) could be elected
>    as President himself someday.

	Could even be this year. A brokered convention and a draft Powell
	movement is a possibility. 

	A lot of positives to this scenario. He dodges all the mud the
	current crop are tossing at each other, and only has a couple
	of months worth of Clinton mud to worry about.

Jim

    
      I spoke too soon on inflation.  The market is all in a flutter
     over interest rates today.  Inflation report was due out at 8:30
     this morning.  Anybody heard ?  Any rise will probably stop the
     fed from lowering rates.  Bad news for all of us.  This is a big
     test of Greenspan's theory of the mythic "soft landing", the Holy
     Grail of economics.  Stagflation would not be pretty at this time.
     If Greenspan is right, there will be no recession, just a pause
     and a new takeoff of growth after a couple quarters.  By the way,
     the defecit is going to be worse than expected this year, due to the
     very much slower growth, regardless of whose budget you use.  It's
     no secret the smaller deficits have been mostly due to good growth,
     hence good tax revenues, 1993-4.  1995 was not so good, 1996 is a
     very likely stinker.
    
      bb

 Z   So there's no need to worry about Clinton, right?  Congress keeps
 Z   him in check?  
    
    Technically yes...as long as there is a Republican congress.  Clinton
    is a problem though because Clinton is clearly the obstructionist here.
    I believe it would be more profitable if there was a Republican
    president as Clinton will simply mean another four years of stagnation
    and lack of progress.  We already know a democrat controlled Exec and
    legislative branch went over like a fart in church...why should he be
    elected?

    RE: .302  Jim Percival

    > Could even be this year. A brokered convention and a draft Powell
    > movement is a possibility. 

    Drafting a vehemently PRO-CHOICE and PRO-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION candidate
    for the Republican party would be pretty ironic.

    When Powell was even CONSIDERING running, the Republicans were already
    gathering their forces against him.

    Clearly, it would split the Republican party even more than it's
    split already (if that's possible.)  Our local paper had a headline
    the other day which stated that even the Christian Coalition is
    split now (but that Buchanan is the favorite here.)  It's hard to
    imagine the party uniting behind the pro-choice and pro-affirmative
    action banners when this is all over.

    
      all a pipedream, imho.  ain't been a real draft in my memory.
     Even Ike ran, beating Taft in NH, I seem to recall ( i was small,
     so may misrember)
    
      it'll be buchanan or dole or alexander or forbes.  take yer pick
    
      bb

    Personally, I think Dole will get the nomination (but he will go
    into the national race a battered, tired candidate.)

    [A poll last night showed that 46% of the Republican voters still
    want Dole to be the Republican nominee.]

    Dole has very little charisma in the first place - as Novak (CNN's
    Evans and Novak) said on ABC's Nightline last week, Dole is a guy
    whose best campaign years are behind him ("not that they were ever
    that good" in the first place).

    Novak is thrilled to see the 'Republican establishment' [Buchanan's
    term is starting to catch on] worried.

  Novak's a character.  ;>  always a pleasure.

RE: 654.304 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."

> as long as there is a Republican congress.

34 Senators are an absolute check.  The Republicans are not going to lose
that bad this election,  even if they lose 75 seats in the House.


Phil

         <<< Note 654.305 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

>    Drafting a vehemently PRO-CHOICE and PRO-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION candidate
>    for the Republican party would be pretty ironic.

	Not if they want to win.

	The REAL irony would be Suzanne Conlon supporting a Republican
	for president. ;-)

Jim

    RE: .310  Jim Percival

    >> Drafting a vehemently PRO-CHOICE and PRO-AFFIRMATIVE ACTION candidate
    >> for the Republican party would be pretty ironic.

    > Not if they want to win.

    Do you really think most Republican voters want to win at any cost
    (even if means that almost half of them would have to switch from
    a vehemently pro-life candidate to a vehemently pro-choice candidate?)

    Remember - Pat Buchanan is *AT WAR* with the Republican establishment
    in this race.  If they were able to beat him by going for a pro-choice,
    pro-affirmative action candidate - I think there would be hell to pay.

    If Powell can be drafted as the Republican candidate, then Buchanan 
    could be 'drafted' (by angry GOP voters) as a 3rd party candidate, IMO.  
    
    I don't think Buchanan supporters will just go along with whatever the
    Republican establishment decides to do from now on.

If there were a brokered convention, I think you'd see an 
Alexander or Lugar nomination before they'd even consider 
Powell.

I'd welcome a brokered convention. The media coverage would be 
unparallelled. An exciting and interesting convention that would 
be full of debate over the issues rather than the usual boring 
pre-decided.

The networks barely covered the past two conventions because they 
were so uninteresting.

daryll

Colin Powell?!  My prediction is that America won't have a black president
before 2012.

    Alexander hasn't won a primary yet (and Lugar hasn't even come
    close.)
    
    Alexander seems like an exciting candidate if you watch his
    interviews - he's more available for appearances on TV programs
    than almost anyone and I think it's helped him a great deal.
    He's very enthusiastic all the time.  (He says he will win.)  :)
    
    If Alexander doesn't win any (or very many) primaries, though,
    why would they give 'the prize' to him?  I don't think they'll
    do it.

    
>    Alexander seems like an exciting candidate if you watch his
>    interviews...

	i don't know what it is, but i find him about as exciting
	as rice pudding.  without the raisins.

Rice pudding!!!!  {Swoon}
And without raisins, yet!!!!! {Fall in a dead faint, with a big smile}

    RE: .315  Di
    
    >> Alexander seems like an exciting candidate if you watch his
    >> interviews...

    > i don't know what it is, but i find him about as exciting
    > as rice pudding.  without the raisins.
    
    You're right - I should have used the phrase 'EXCITED candidate'
    (because he mostly seems excited about himself.)  :)

    
>    You're right - I should have used the phrase 'EXCITED candidate'
>    (because he mostly seems excited about himself.)  :)

	_that_ i'll grant you. 

How many has Powell won? Yet his name is being tossed around in 
here as well. A broken convention could result in the nomination 
of any one of the candidates or a draft of someone that isn't 
even currently running.

daryll

         <<< Note 654.311 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

>    Do you really think most Republican voters want to win at any cost
>    (even if means that almost half of them would have to switch from
>    a vehemently pro-life candidate to a vehemently pro-choice candidate?)

	Since when is 27% "almost half"?

Jim

 Z   Colin Powell?!  My prediction is that America won't have a black
 Z   president before 2012.
    
    Why's that???

Because there are lots of racists in this country -- people who would
never vote for a black, no matter what his positions, no matter what his
qualifications, no matter who opposed him.

Why 2012?  I was originally going to say 30 years, but I chickened out.

  .323  30?  save that for a wimmins.

I think we'll have a woman president before we'll have a black president.
It's simple demographics.

      I saw Colin Powell some months ago on an interview with (I think)
      Barbara Walters.  He was far from conservative.  He did talk about
      the need for the United States to be fiscally much tighter, but he
      was far from backing off from the concept of a federal welfare and
      entitlement system.  I think he was also pro-affirmative action, if
      I recall. 
    
      When I think about what I want, I think Libertarian and I thus 
      qualify Republican candidates by how Libertarian a federal govt.
      philosophy they actually seem to have.  As far as that goes, you
      can totally forget about Powell, Dole, and Alexander.  The latter
      two don't seem to be fiscally too far to the right of Clinton.
    
      In the final analysis, it doesn't look good to me.  Whether it be
      Republican or Democrat, either candidate will endorse socialist
      rather than Constitutional rule.  Either way, the Constitution is
      being blasphemed bigtime.  By that I mean a pretense of obedience to
      it while it is contradicted to a sickening extent.
    
      No, things look bleak, imo.
    
    						Tony
                                                

  i don't know, my dear.  at least there are rumblings to the contrary
  now.  i understand why you'd say that though.

    
    I'm with Di.  I think many people will vote for a black president
    before they'll even consider voting for a 'broad'.
    
    
    

Certainly _many_ people would vote for a black but not for a woman.  But how
many women would?  Aren't most voters women?

    
    Unfortunately, there are many women like Phyllis Schlafly (sp?) who
    would in no way vote for a woman.
    

    RE: .321  Jim Percival
    
    >> Do you really think most Republican voters want to win at any cost
    >> (even if means that almost half of them would have to switch from
    >> a vehemently pro-life candidate to a vehemently pro-choice candidate?)

    > Since when is 27% "almost half"?
    
    As mentioned earlier, the Christian Coalition is currently split, too.
    If you count the Buchanan supporters (some of which belong to the
    Coalition) and the Coalition itself, how close does it get to the point
    of 'almost half' the Republican voters supporting a vehemently pro-life
    candidate (or at least being vehemently pro-life themselves)?
    
    (Who is vehemently pro-life in the Republican race nowadays?  I know
    that Buchanan and Keyes are both VERY pro-life.)

    
    	[Hee hee hee hee]
    

    
    As long as someone is a fire-breathing right-wing communist-hating
    anti-unionist, anti-socialist gun-toting Republican SOB with an
    attitude the size of Montana, I frankly don't give a crap what
    color their skin is or whether they squat when they pee. The
    trouble is, finding that magic list of qualifications in a
    minority female.
    
    -b

    > Certainly _many_ people would vote for a black but not for a woman. 
    
       I disagree.   I think alot of men would vote for a woman president.
    
      I would still vote on issues. As would many other men. IMHO
        ( I thought Prime Minister Margret Thatcher was awesome ! )
    
    Jack
    

   >> Certainly _many_ people would vote for a black but not for a woman. 
    
>       I disagree.   I think alot of men would vote for a woman president.
    

	you might notice that gerald didn't say "all".

    
    	If she had a nice body, it might actually encourage me to watch
    	those "State of the Union" addresses once in awhile.
    
    	And when females lick their lips alot when they talk, it adds a
    	certain something to the overall effect.  Oh, and a really long
    	slit up the side of the skirt.
    

    
    You're SUCH a slut.
    

    
    	Point being ... ??
    

    
    I just felt like Sharing.
    
    

    8^o

    
    	RE: Deb
    
    	And you call ME a slut??
    

    
    Sharing my OPINION, my OPINION, you 8^).
    
    

    
    	Oh.  Now I see.
    

    	>Oh.  Now I see.
    
Soooooo, you finally see that you are a slut??    :)

    
    	No, no ... I see her point now.
    

    
    {fumble}
    
    And I thought I had combed my hair so carefully this morning.
    

    Shawn mentioined something about Madonna earlier, I thought, I think
    this is true, I could have sworn it was anyway.  

    
    	Brian, if that were the case I would've said "points".
    
    	Deb, fret not ... it hardly shows if you adopt the Pebbles
    	Flintstone hairdo.
    

    I predict ya'll will see the guv of New Joisey (Whitman) on a 
    national ticket in the not too distant future.
    
    
    reese x31735
    

    
      Well after a jittery morning, the Dow settled in for a small
     loss.  The inflation report looked bad as a raw number, but all
     of this "inflation" could be caused by much higher than normal
     January fuel consumption.  The USA had a very cold January, and a
     snowy one, too.  But February has been warmer than normal, so next
     month's figures may return to no inflation.
    
      Bad growth numbers continue to accumulate.  Declines in housing
     starts, declines in consumer demand, falling backlogs in durables.
     I think the Fed will go ahead and lower rates again.
    
      bb

    
    
    a brokered convention probably requires minimally a three way
    race.  this is possible because of steve forbes and his money,
    because of buchanan and his steady following, and dole hitting
    his spending limit.  with a nod from powell i think the balloting
    would quickly turn in his favor.  
    

    Most of the pro-life people that I know well assure me that they
    would NEVER vote for a pro-choice Republican candidate (even if
    it meant that the Republicans would lose the election.)

    I know one guy who is waiting to see what Forbes says about abortion.
    If he doesn't turn out to be pro-life (but gets the nomination), my
    friend won't vote for Forbes even though he wants a flat tax.

    By the way, I saw a poll a couple of weeks ago which showed that
    pro-choice Republicans favored Forbes (59% of such voters, I think.)

    I have the impression that some people already believe that Forbes
    is pro-choice (although it's hard to know what Forbes' beliefs are
    since he mostly talks about one issue.)

    Even when Forbes does bring up other issues, they almost always seem
    to be related to MONEY somehow.  (Small wonder, eh?)  :)

         <<< Note 654.353 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>
>            -< The Republican establishment won't turn to Powell. >-

	Depends on who you are counting among the "establishment".

	The pragmatic power brokers may well support a Powell 
	nomination. Once nominated, Powell would not need to
	count on a unified Republican support to be elected.

	You may need to be reminded that not all Republicans
	are anti-abortion.

Jim

I don't necessarily think that the abortion issue (either side) is as big 
a deal in all peoples' minds as they'd like to have you believe it to be,
especially when it comes to choosing a presidential favorite. My Roman
Catholic pro-life mother will still vote for Slick, regardless of his
stand on that matter, under the pretense that "there are more important
things to consider". Likewise, if Buchanan takes the GOP convention, I'll
end up having to support him, regardless of my pro-choice viewpoints.

I do think that the abortion issue is a big deal on the Republican
side. I don't think it is possible in this election, for the Republican 
party to nominate a pro-choice candidate. There was a scramble after
Buchanan's speach during the last Republican convention to come up 
with some more moderate Republicans (Weld) but this movement has
withered. The CR still is a major influence in the Republican party
and simply won't tolerate a pro-choice candidate. Which of course,
given public opinion on abortion, is a big reason why they won't 
win in the next election (though they do win some people back with their 
rhetoric on big government, taxes....).  

The one candidate who probably could have beaten Clinton was 
Powell and they (CR) were just warming up for him when he quit.  

>                              -< I think it is.. >-

It'll be a bigger deal if the GOP nominee is a radical pro-lifer such as
Pat "I'll do everything I can to make abortion illegal if I become president"
Buchanan, rather than a political pro-lifer such as was George "I'll tell
you I'm pro-life for the sake of argument, and your vote, but don't expect
me to do anything about it" Bush. I think the jury still is out as to which
of these Dole, Alexander and Forbes actually are, but I'll take bets on
the latter.

    After all of Dole's big words on fighting for the 'heart and soul
    of the Republican party', nominating a pro-choice, pro-affirmative
    action candidate would make the current Republican party split 
    beyond repair.  ('Drafting' such a candidate in a convention after
    going through a primary season where the guy didn't even campaign
    would make the split even worse, IMO.)

    I doubt that religious conservatives would settle for anything less
    than Pat Buchanan as a 'compromise' (or another pro-life candidate 
    at the very, very, very least.)

    The Christian Coalition has already talked about having a separate
    political party, haven't they?  (Or was it another Christian group?)
    I think a big GOP split would be enough to make this happen (big time).

    read my lips:                                       
    
    Anybody
       But
    	  Clinton.
    
    Using the highly scientific method of football results (no, I'm
    not a phutbol fan), the republicans will win.
    
    If the winning team in the superbowl (in an election year) scores the
    last point(s) in the game, the republicans will win. THis has been 
    100% consistent since 1972.
    
    If the winning team in the sugar bowl has a mascot named after an
    animal, the democrats are likely to win. THis has been approx 70%
    accurate.
    
    Don't blame me, Rush came out with this yesterday...

>    Don't blame me, Rush came out with this yesterday...

And of all the people hoping for another 4-year bout with Clinton, ol'
Rush has to be way up there.

His worse nightmare is the Republican hat trick of the Senate, the House
and the Presidency. What the hail would he carp on then?

TTom

    	It is too late for the GOP to remove the pro-life plank from
    	its platform.  That would guarantee a 3rd-party candidate (most
    	likely Buchannan) and a Slick victory.
    
    	What could possibly work would be for Forbes or Alexander to 
    	announce ASAP that he will take Keyes as his running mate (with
    	Keyes' agreement, of course.)  It may be too late for Alexander
    	to do that already given his dismal showing yesterday...
    
    	I think that without the Buchannan momentum, more pro-life people 
    	(myself included) would prefer Keyes over Buchannan, but so many
    	are supporting Pat because he has the better potential to carry
    	the pro-life message.  I'm still planning to vote for Keyes on
    	March 5, but I'm rooting for Buchannan to make a good showing and
    	continue to carry the pro-life message.
    
    	But if Keyes were given a better platform than his current funding
    	and exposure afford him, he would attract much more interest.  That 
    	platform could be provided by the running-mate coattails of some 
    	other major candidate.
    
    	I doubt that Keyes would be willing to run with a clear pro-choice
    	candidate.  That would rule out Powell.  But both Alexander and
    	Forbes have been wishy-washy in this area, so are not necessarily
    	purely pro-choice, and Keyes might just accept an invitation.  Such
    	a ticket would attract those like myself who are very concerned 
    	about pro-life issues.  
    
    	It would also immediately impact the GOP race in that it would
    	create a sort of tag-team 2-on-1 when other candidates are weighed
    	against the ticket.  I believe that it would solidify that ticket
    	into the immediate front-runner by drawing a significant portion
    	of the pro-life vote.
    	
    	If I am right in my guess on that tag-team factor, it would blind-
    	side the other candidates in the current race, and it could change
    	the face of presidential primary tactics in future elections.

    Think about it though.  Limbaugh has everything to gain by having
    Clinton win the election.  Another four years of good solid fodder!!!

    Personally, I think Buchanan was right when he said that the 
    'Republican establishment' will do anything to keep him from
    getting the nomination.

    If they have enough power to keep Buchanan out, then they have
    enough Power to make Dole the nominee (as long as Dole doesn't
    fall apart completely in the next few months.)

    If Dole can hold his own in a three-way tie, the Republicans
    will do everything possible to nominate him.  Why?  Because
    Dole represents the Republican Revolution (and the winning of
    the House and Senate, etc.)  If Dole can't get elected as a
    dog-catcher in the year after the first year (in 40 years)
    of a Republican majority in Congress, I think the 'Republican
    establishment' worries about what that says about their support
    from American voters.  (And I think it IS something to worry about.)

    If Republicans pick an 'outsider' to lead the party in this
    election, it will seem as if the Republican party is still looking 
    for direction.  (All this 'fighting for the hearts and souls' stuff
    certainly adds fuel to this notion.)

    It is unfortunate for Dole and his big supporters among Republican
    politicians that he is an abysmal speaker.  It's been obvious to me
    for the past couple of years that there is NO WAY Dole could win a
    national election on his own.  I saw some snippets from his speeches
    last night on Nightline - he is much worse than I even realized.
    It will hurt his chances in this race.  Badly.

 Z   It is unfortunate for Dole and his big supporters among Republican
 Z   politicians that he is an abysmal speaker. 
    
    Specify.  Why is he an abismal speaker?

    
    >>Specify.  Why is he an abismal speaker?
    
    He reminded me of Clutch Cargo in the State of the Union response. 
    Nothing moved except the lips.

    Well, we got one vote for a Clutch Cargo look alike (with his pal
    Spinner and Paddlefoot!).  Any other reasons?

    RE: .365  Jack Martin

    > Specify.  Why is he an abismal speaker?
    
    He speaks in a monotone mostly, and he can't 'think on his feet'
    when people are talking to him.

    When he gives written speeches (which should be easy even for him),
    he forgets where he is sometimes and his voice trails off as if he
    were lost in thought.

    Two examples were shown last night. The first one went something
    like this:

    	"President Clinton said he wanted to reform Welfare.  Well,
    	WE GAVE HIM A WELFARE REFORM BILL.  We passed it 88 to 11...
    	<pause>  88 to 11...  <voice is quieter>  Actually, there was
    	one person absent that day, I think.  <pause>  Or we would
    	have had another vote...  <even quieter now, looking disoriented>
    	<a long pause while he looks at his notes>"

    In the second one, he was making some nice loud point (with good
    forceful language) and he was saying something about how if they
    didn't do this particular thing, then.....  <He stopped completely,
    then stumbled a bit and looked down at his papers while making
    some quiet comment about the 'trust' that people had given them
    'all these years', or some such.  In other words, HE LOST IT.>

    Dan Quayle is not the best speaker in the world, either, but at
    least he knows that if you make a big point, YOU NEED A STRONG
    FINISH AT THE END (to get people to applaud about it.)

    	"...and I wear this <insulting term> as...A...BADGE...OF...HONOR."

    If the person trails off at the end because he's lost, there's
    nothing to applaud.  The momentum is lost and the speaker looks
    like he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

    After Dole lost New Hampshire, some of his speeches were about 'WHAT
    BOB DOLE IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT FROM NOW ON'.  If you're being
    interviewed by the media, it's appropriate to describe what you PLAN
    to say, but when you're actually IN A POLITICAL SPEECH, it doesn't
    really work.

    Also, when he's confronted, Dole really sounds nervous and defensive.
    He spoke out at the NH debate when it was Buchanan's turn to speak.
    Dole was off camera nervously denying things that PB was saying.
    Buchanan looked a bit shocked that Dole was doing this.

    If you don't believe that this will hurt Dole, remember how Nixon
    was described as looking 'shifty' in the Nixon-Kennedy debates?
    Nixon was considered to have LOST those debates, and it cost him.

    Dole couldn't stand up against Chelsea in a debate.

    Is it possible that Dole didn't expect to have to run much of a
    campaign to get the nomination?

    Doesn't he have speech writers amidst his army of campaign workers?

    After NH, the press reported that his staff told him to bring more
    of 'himself' to the people (about what he wants to do, etc.)  
    Bad move.  He isn't a very engaging person when talking to a large
    group of people who don't know him personally.

    He's more lost than ever.

    Buchanan most definitely 'thinks on his feet' when he's speaking,
    of course.

    The best Republican speaker in the whole field is Alan Keyes, by far.
    He has the clearest message and knows exactly what he wants to say.
    This talent probably comes in handy in his job as a conservative
    talk show host.  :)  (He hasn't reached a big enough group of voters 
    yet, though, and I doubt he will do it in this election.)

    Not to mention the media has not considered him newsworthy.  But they
    aren't bogots...no sirreee sir!!

    But they aren't bogots, nosirreee...

    If Keyes had pulled an upset (by coming in 3rd or 4th in Iowa or
    NH), they would have spent more time talking about him.

    When Alexander started going up in the polls, they talked about him
    A LOT.  (I think it helped that he was more available for interviews
    than the other candidates were, for awhile.)

    Now they hardly mention Alexander at all.  Last night, after Forbes'
    big upset, all their material was about BUCHANAN (they had expected
    him to win, I guess.)  PB was all ABC wanted to talk about.

    Forbes made himself available for some late night live interviews
    - if he hadn't done that, they wouldn't barely have mentioned him 
    at all.

    Now, FORBES will be the big topic for the press (along with Buchanan.)

    As sad as it is, Dole won TWO primaries yesterday and he's considered
    the big loser in all this (even though Buchanan won NO primaries
    yesterday and Forbes won ONE.)  Forbes got the big PRIZE, of course.

    The press is shifting gears so fast in this race, you can hear the
    grinding noises all over this country.

    We have a three-man race going (with a personnel change, as Forbes'
    campaign comes back alive and Alexander's fades).  There's no way
    they're going to give a lot of coverage to anyone else right now.
    
    If anyone else threatens the current three, the press will cover
    the change.

    But the press ignored the man from the beginning.  

Jack, they don't cover Morry Taylor either.

    He was never listed in the polls as being a huge threat to the
    front runner.
    
    They report on the people who look like they are winning (or at
    least 'moving up' significantly in the race.)   It wasn't until
    after NH that I saw the story of Buchanan's life described all
    over the press, for example.  Now I've seen his elementary school,
    his baby photos and his entire family's pictures.  (Now it's news.)
    
    They said Forbes' campaign was dead after Iowa and NH, and they
    all but stopped talking about him.  (Until last night.)
    
    If Keyes surges ahead, they'll talk about him a lot, too.

    When Colin Powell was thinking about running, the press was all over
    him like a cheap suit.
    
    They still fall all over themselves to quote him when he has anything
    to say about the current nomination race.
    
    It's because the polls showed he could win (if he ran).

 ZZ   Jack, they don't cover Morry Taylor either.
    
    True...but do you remember the hoopla in 1987 when the media was goo
    gooing and gaa gaaing over that...oh that reprehensible
    socialist...damn what was his name...he was the governor of New York.
    Anyway, I was flabbergasted over the attention this jackass was
    getting...and he wasn't even in the race.  Cuomo...That's it!  From
    that point on, I realized the stench our media had put upon themselves.
    
    -Jack 

    i predict that someday jam will put upon himself a stench.

    I predict that I will be sending a ransom note from one of your
    accounts next week!  Who will it be!!!???

         <<< Note 654.377 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians" >>>

>    It's because the polls showed he could win (if he ran).

    	Don't you mean:  "if he would have run"  ?   :^)

    
    No - "He would of winned if he'd ranned."  (Or is it 'runned'?)
    
    :-)

    I predict Joe will be back!!!!:-)

groan

    When his name comes up, I feel like I've just spotted Elvis myself. :)

    i feel i've spotted hardy to jack's laurel.

    Sounds like a Star Trek line to me.

    
    
    Think about it Jack...
    

    now make that silly grin.

    Well, I'm glad I have the faster metabolism anyway! 

    It's really cute when you cry, too.  :)

    She said I'm cuuuuuuuuuuttttte!!!!!

    Now scratch the top of your head and wonder what this all means.  :)

    > She said I'm cuuuuuuuuuuttttte!!!!!
    
    I believe that's muuuuuuuuuuttttee!!!!

	I predict we will never get another moment when Jack says nothing.

    Nyahhhhhh!

    I predict I'll be awake again till 3 ish

      Suz,  your assessment of Dole ( circa .368 )  is dead center perfect.
    
      I was shocked by his morning_after_the_NH_primary speech.  He looked
     like he was gonna break down and cry.  He seemed rattled and shocked 
    beyond belief by the voice of the voters.  As if he lost sight of the
    fact that the primary battle has just begun.
    
      I don't think he has the strength to be the leader of the free world.
    
    Jack
    

    I'm inclined to agree...

      
      Fuel for Buchanan's fire;
    
         Washington (AP) story in today's paper;
    The U.S. trade deficit in goods and services rose to $111.04 billion
    in 1995, the worst showing in seven years, as the country suffered
    record trade gaps with both China and Mexico.
       The Mexico portion soared to a record deficit of $15.4 billion
    last year as imports from Mexico surged 24.7 % while U.S. exports to 
    Mexico fell by 8.9 percent.
    
    

    You can get good running shoes made in the US, buy cars whose parts are
    built by good old US labor (of course the car may have a foreign name,
    since Chevy, ford, et al are heavily invested in ME and CAN, but some
    of the japenese brands are made with almost all parts from and in the
    US)...

When did Maine secede?  Are they forming a confederation with New Mexico?

    > A good
    > hand-sewn quilt made in PA or anywhere in the Appalachians will run you
    > 80-300 dollars
    
    Right.  If you expect the sewer to settle for something like 20 cents
    an hour for her labor.  Amish and Mennonite quilts sold in the annual
    Shipshewana, IN, auction typically bring $500 and up - and this is a
    true bargain, as the same quilts sold in sewing stores or gift ships
    usually start at nearly twice that.

    <--- Is there no end to that man's knowledge?!

    
      The latest factory order numbers for January indicated that
     capital goods is still strong, unlike the sagging consumer
     markets.  This is good news for Greenspan - he probably won't
     lower rates just yet.  Which is bad news for the stock market,
     which will fall some due to the comparison with bond rates.  The
     overall growth rate seems to be holding near 1%/year, perhaps
     sliding to zero.  It doesn't help Greenspan's "soft landing"
     scenario that this is a political year.  There may be pressure
     to goose the economy unsustainably, which would prolong positive
     growth through 96, but would inevitably result in inflation and a
     true recession in 97.  I think the fed will sit on there hands now.
    
      bb

        <<< Note 654.21 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

    YES!!  Your on!!!  If Lamar comes in third, I will relinquish a two
    liter bottle of your favorite soda beverage!  I believe Forbes will
    come in third because Lamar is Clinton in disguise and most people know
    this!  
    
    -Jack

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    did anybody ever collect on this?

    
    	Yes, I believe a deal was talked about.
    
    	Jack M. was going to buy Jack D. a bottle of soda, and Jack D.
    	was going to buy Jack M. a coffee [or something like that].
    

    High stakes wagering going on there.

He still hasn't shown up with the soda.

    
    	Give him a week, and if you still don't have the soda than I
    	have a friend named Guido who owes me a favor.
    

    
       Unusually high new job figures January (which had sagging
     consumer demand), sent the stock market into a correction.  This
     makes it very unlikely Greenspan will lower rates.
    
       I have said so many negative things about Clinton and his many
     failures, that I have to say one good thing.  For a normal 4-year
     term, America generates 6 million jobs.  Clinton set the ambitious
     target of 8 million.  With the big January figures, he's met it.
     That's one campaign promise he can (and surely will) brag about
     fulfilling in the election.
    
      bb

 "Yep, Clinton's created many new jobs...I have 3 of them"



                       Pat Buchanan quoting somebody.

    The new jobs figure was for February. (Unemployment down to 5.5%-
    lowest since Reagan.)

	But Clinton is so damn bad for this country...right?

    Mebbe NAFTA isn't the end of the world afterall?

    Well, more jobs in Canada too fwiw.

    
    Any jobs available for an experienced Brador & Poutine taster?
                                         

    
    
    		George Burns will die.
    
       DOH!
    
    Z-Wolf

    well, you didn't lose any points anyway.

    
    
    Did anyone bother to include the fact that part-time jobs were part and
    parcel of those "statistics"?
    

    .416
    
    Jim came closest to the mark; sure unemployment is down, as
    Buchanan said many folks (including TFSO'd Digits) are working
    2 or 3 jobs just to keep their heads above water.
    
    Once DEC-SALE moves to Littleton (without me) I'm sure I could get
    a job the next day if I don't mind being a greeter at Walmart.  Ask
    me if I can afford to live or pay my mortgage on what a Walmart
    greeter is paid :-(
    
    

    
    	Karen, the really good greeters probably make much more money
    	than the so-so greeters.
    

    > Karen, the really good greeters probably make much more money
    > than the so-so greeters.
    
    in that case, 

   Washington (AP) - A consensus overview of what the Electoral College
  battle might look like in a Dole-Clinton presidential race.  It takes
  a majority, or 270, of the 558 electoral votes to win the presidency.
   States were categorized after interviews with a dozen Democratic and
  Republican strategists, who were about evenly split, including
  officials from both the Dole and Clinton campaigns.
   All based their projections on what they expected to be a close race
  in the fall - not on Clinton's current lopsided lead in the national
  polls.  And all added the caveat that much could change between now and
  November - and that a Ross Perot candidacy would significantly change
  things.  In addition to states that were consensus tossups, those over
  which there was considerable disagreement were labeled tossups.
   Likely Republican (121) : Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina,
  Oklahoma, Kansas, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota,
  Virginia, Indiana, Utah, Alaska.
   Leaning Republican (76) : Florida, Arizona, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio,
  New Hampshire.
   Likely Democratic (195) : California, Washington, Oregon, New York,
  Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Arkansas,
  Maryland, Minnesota, Iowa, Hawaii, Illinois, District of Columbia.
   Tossups (146) : Delaware, Michigan, Missouri, Colorado, Pennsylvania,
  Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Connecticutt, New Jersey, New Mexico,
  Wisconsin, Georgia, Montana.

   bb

    I thimk China will fulfill their promise of NUKING L.A. on the 16 April
    1996.
    There are cheap houses available in Australia NOW!!!
    
    To secure your future and aleviate Nuclear anihahilation phone now on 
    

If they had _any_ sense of justice they'd do it on the 14th, before people
pay their taxes.

/john

    Between the earthquakes, riots, mudslides, wildfires, etc, a nuke
    just may go by there unnoticed...