Conference back40::soapbox

I started a draft of such a note back when "Politics of the Left/Right"
appeared... Here's what I came up with, the contents of which are very much
up for debate. I'm probably too biased to write this.



o personal, individual freedom

Mind your own business. If it doesn't affect you, it's not your concern.
People always have and always will pretty much do whatever they want to do.
Passing many laws only generates paperwork for bureaucrats, and makes
innocent, peaceable citizens into criminals.

o simple values

Kids get a stable, nurturing home environment. Included in this is a simple,
direct basis in right and wrong. Things which adversely affect others are
wrong:  raping, killing, stealing, rudeness, selfishness. "Do unto others..."
Things which adversely affect you are stupid, but not wrong: drugs,
promiscuity, addictions. All other things are ok.

o aren't preoccupied with: race, sexual preference, welfare, drugs, crime, as
  these things have little affect on their lives, other than gov't
  heavy-handedness in "solving" them.
  
Many people would have little or no contact with any of these "problems" if
it weren't for gov't intrusion. It's usually at that time that they become
problems.

    Tom:
    
    In Clintons words, I play by the rules.  I get up early, I dress the
    kids, I get to work, I do the second job thing...and I've been pulling
    the cart for years.
    
    Then I get home tired and I hear jackasses like Gephart telling me how
    meanspirited I am.  What is one to do?
    
    -Jack

Re: Steve's .0 question and Tom's .1 answer -

   Sounds a lot like the guts of Libertarianism. Has a nice ring to it,
   as well. Less Government is better government.

    
    Politics of the muddle ?  Ask the noters from the UK...
    
      bb

>         <<< Note 357.3 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>   Sounds a lot like the guts of Libertarianism.

Yah, but is this "the middle"?

That's what I meant by "I may be too biased". I have a definite Libertarian
lean. 

I tried to incorporate my interpretation of the views of various middle-class
shmucks I know and have known...

    
    A `centrist' could be someone who is too easily swayed one way and then
    the other.  He hears a good argument FOR capital punishment, and then
    is in favour.  Then he hears a good argument AGAINST capital punishment,
    and then is opposed.
    
    Or it could be someone who has NO opinion on the issues of the day, and
    merely shrugs when queried.
    
    Or it could be someone who plays whichever side of the fence benefits
    him most, regardless of his view or right-and-wrong.
    
    Or I could be making all this up.    :^)
    
    jc
    

    Or it could be someone who thinks both sets of extremists are correct
    in some areas and way out to lunch in others.  I like the GOP notion of
    getting the government out of people's pockets.  I like the Democrats
    notion of getting the government out of people's bedrooms.  I'm for
    personal liberty; that means I'm pro-gun and pro-choice.  Why can't
    either mainstream party give me both?  So I declare centrist not to be
    wishy washy but to indicate a lack of loyalty to either slate, since
    they're both just as wrong on some issue as they're right on others.
    
    Maybe that's iconoclasm.
    
    DougO

Why, DougO, you and I are more alike than your notes would have
ever led me to believe. 

:^)

    
    people in the "middle" politically have to be the ones swayed one
    way or the other by campaign commercials - the clueless who decide
    close elections.  

    Actually, Clinton was referring to his favorite position in bed, not in
    politics.

  There's another big group in the middle and that's the group that just
couldn't care less who's in charge. 

  They pretty much ignore politics year round then maybe they show up on
election day and vote. 

  I've met many people like this. They seem to be primarily concerned with what
is going in in their personal relationships with the people closest to them and
don't spend much time thinking of anything else. 

  They will go on for hours about a parent, child, brother or sister but start
talking about the President or the Mayor and their eyes gloss over, the nod
politely, then wander off to see what their family member is up to. 

  George

>                     <<< Note 357.11 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>

>  There's another big group in the middle and that's the group that just
>couldn't care less who's in charge. 

Yep, a perfect description of 'em. No interest in anything outside their
little world.

    
    I like DougO's description best so far.

    
    Re: > I like DougO's description best so far.
    
    
    Agreed. And his recent notes in the Politics of the Right
    topic have been outstanding. 

re: .7 
So there really are other pro-2nd & pro-choice types out there!!
It's probably no secret how difficult it is to find candidates for public
office whom we find satisfactory.

    And another pro-choice, pro-RKBA person here...

    However, I don't consider myself a centrist for two reasons:

    1. Being born and raised in Mass, and having had a unique
       perspective on this state and its politics, I developed
       a deep loathing for the Democratic party, and have
       never and will never vote for anyone who calls themselves
       a Democrat. However, this does not mean that I vote
       purely Republican... I just never vote for Dems.

    2. I am anti-government to what most people would probably
       consider an extreme... in fact, I know it's an extreme.
       The Constitution itself is all the law I have any use
       for... and a breathing politician is a bad one.

    So, more than being a centrist, I'm a bidirectional
    extremist! :-)

    -b

    <----- :-) I like it!
    
    RE: .15, you are not alone.

	Brian Markey, does it make more sense to say that you would not vote
for a dem, or that you would vote for the best candidate? I thought it was good
that you did not say you vote just the repub ticket (although when I first
started to read the note it looked like it was going that way) but to never
vote dem means you may vote for someone who should not be in office at some
point. Can you see where I am coming from? 


Glen

    Well, yes, Glen, I can see where you're coming from. But here's
    where I'm coming from...

    If a candidate bothers to call themselves a Democrat, that probably
    means they agree with at least some portion of what the Democrats
    consider their platform, and that further, I can expect that
    person to vote (a majority of the time) as a Democrat on a
    particular issue. And I could not vote for someone who would do
    that...

    I expect the same thing of a Republican, and it just so happens
    that if given the choice, I would vote the way most Republican
    legislators do on most issues.

    Now, there's some Republicans who I will never vote for again.
    Bill Weld and Peter Blute immediately spring to mind. Both
    of them call themselves Repubs but think and vote like a
    Democrat... in fact, in both cases, vote with what I would
    consider to be the very worst elements of the democratic
    platform. Both are gun grabbers, and both are pork barrel
    addicts. Weld wants to pass a Draconian assault weapon ban,
    Blute wants full speed ahead on that sickening boondoggle
    that central Mass knows as "Med City". Not to mention how
    pissed I am both of them over the whole harbor tunnel
    debacle.

    Now there's also Dems who vote like Repubs, but that really
    strikes me as an exercise in dishonesty. If you're a Repub,
    call yourself a Repub. Don't call yourself what you think
    will get you the most votes... that's what being a politician
    is all about and I don't like politicians.

    Generally, if there's not a suitable Repub candidate for
    office, then I'll either vote third party or leave it blank.

    -b

| <<< Note 357.19 by MPGS::MARKEY "Specialists in Horizontal Decorum" >>>


| If a candidate bothers to call themselves a Democrat, that probably means they
| agree with at least some portion of what the Democrats consider their platform
| and that further, I can expect that person to vote (a majority of the time) 
| as a Democrat on a particular issue. And I could not vote for someone who 
| would do that...

	Wow..... maybe what we need is to listen to the candidate before we
just brush them off. In case you have not seen this Brian, both dem & repub
officials have people who are different. Bill Weld, which you mentioned
earlier, is not the normal repub. Neither is Pete Wilson. 

| Now there's also Dems who vote like Repubs, but that really strikes me as an 
| exercise in dishonesty. 

	Wow, this is too much Brian. They vote the way you would be interested,
yet now they're dishonest. Could it be that while these people may hold a lot
of the values as <insert party>, they vote the way they think is the best? I
would rather have candidates that did this than ones who vote party line.

	And Brian, you can't fool me. You never leave any blanks on a ballot. I
hear that your name appears for several positions on any given ballot. Of
course you only get one vote..... :-0

Glen

    Glen, I'm a crackpot, what can I say? :-)

    However... I can't really "guess" what someone is going to do
    on any given issue, now can I? Sure what they say is a hint,
    but you know campaign rhetoric. It's basically say as much
    as they can without saying anything. So the only real hint
    is what they call themselves. I can only assume that with a
    Dem, I'm getting mostly a Dem, with a Repub, I'm getting mostly
    a Repub. Sometimes, it doesn't work out that way, so I
    "adjust" my vote next time.

    I'm just saying that politicians are a slimy bunch by trade,
    so nothing is a given. However, for the most part when I
    see a "D" next to the name I think "hazardous waste"... :-)

    And I never write in my own name. That would mean I think
    I'd make a good politician... which is self-hate taken
    an extreme. :-) :-) :-)

    -b

	Brian, I think you would make a great polly-tit-ion. Cuz if you were
one, you might give the word a good name. :-)  


Glen

    Well, I would be useful in a filibuster! :-)

    -b

| <<< Note 357.23 by MPGS::MARKEY "Specialists in Horizontal Decorum" >>>


| Well, I would be useful in a filibuster! :-)

	You see Brian.... no matter how much someone tells you otherwise, there
is a use for ya afterall! Hang in their bud! :-)

.19

>Blute wants full speed ahead on that sickening boondoggle
>    that central Mass knows as "Med City".

I'd be interested to know why you feel so strongly about this issue.
Do you think that it's just a very expensive bad idea?  

    >I'd be interested to know why you feel so strongly about this issue.
    >Do you think that it's just a very expensive bad idea?  

    Since you asked... the reason it is a bad idea is who is
    behind it. Fallon, the health care provider, that for
    many people (including myself) is an example of bad
    healthcare.

    Fallon now has the Federal government to help them
    bankroll their pet project, thanks to Joe Early and
    Peter Blute. I think this does _nothing_ for Worcester,
    and Massachusetts, and everything for some rich
    people who do not deserve the money based on their
    past performance.

    -b

Thanks for your reply!
I'm trying to get up to snuff on this seeing that
it's in my own back yard...

Why is it that as we get closer and closer to the election, it seems as 
though more and more of the "middle of the roaders" appear "undecided"?

Fer crissakes people - take a stand, dammit!

All too often "politics of the middle" strikes me as "plain indecision".

It seems to me that by this late date in the game (re: 5 months and counting
till the elections), indecision is kind of a wimpy position.

You get what you pay for.

    eh?  faced with two such unappetizing choices, you want me to commit
    now?  Mr campaign or mr wooden stick?  mr I-was-too-STUPID-to-inhale
    or mr I-was-too-straight-to-think-of-it?  mr nouveau-republican or mr
    establishment-republican?  what are you, nuts?
    
    Caught a glimmer of hope today in that call for the Demo party
    convention to salvage itself if Clinton's been smeared badly enough by
    August to nominate AlGore.  Four years as Bill's understudy should have
    taught him what not to do as president.  Otherwise I'll have to vote
    for mr image or mr one-foot-in-the-grave.
    
    How is it that the choices keep getting WORSE every four years?
    I mean, I started voting when I had a choice of Reagan or Carter!
    At least there was Anderson to enable one to preserve respectability.
    
    DougO

>  what are you, nuts?

Hell NO, DougO. I'm a conservative! :^)

RE: 357.28 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> The Goal - Get Slick out of the Whitehouse

Hint.  If your goal is to elect someone other than Mr Clinton as President
of the United States,  stop calling Mr Clinton "Slick".  


> more and more of the "middle of the roaders" appear "undecided"?

Oh?  Polls show well over 50% decided to vote for Mr Clinton.  A tough road
for Mr Dole.

I'm not going to make a decision until Mr Dole picks his Vice President.  
Noting Mr Dole's age,  his VP is fairly likely to be President.  If Mr
Dole's choice is a Religious Radical Right type,  I'm voting for Mr
Clinton.  I think Mr Dole will pick a moderate.  We will see.  That's
"wimpy"?


Phil

>stop calling Mr Clinton "Slick".  

In a word, "NO".

I'm sick and tired of the "we must show him respect because he's Our Nation's
President" attitude. He is nothing more than a lying, draft-dodging, slimebag
sack of crap who was put in office by a minority of the voters. He deserves
his Slick moniker.

RE: 357.32 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)"

> In a word, "NO".

Ok,  then you will get to deal with a "lying, draft-dodging, slimebag sack
of crap" put in office by a minority of voters in one election,  and by a
majority in the next election.  Bacause you couldn't bother to be polite.

You are helping Mr Clinton by your actions.


Phil

Phil, do you really think anybody's going to vote for Clinton because Jack
DelBalso uses disrespectful language?  I suspect he's flattered.

    > I'm sick and tired of the "we must show him respect because he's
    > Our Nation's President" attitude. He is nothing more than a lying,
    > draft-dodging, slimebag sack of crap who was put in office by a
    > minority of the voters. He deserves his Slick moniker.
    
    Jack, Jack.  What would Politenessman say?  You know, entire
    elections have been decided over the issue of which candidate had
    been shown the most respect by the electorate during the campaign.
    
    In spite of that, I'll add that Slick's a "womanizin', dope-smokin'-
    and-snortin', campaign-promise-breakin', mummified-corpse-lecherin',
    domestic-massacre-supportin', rootin-tootin dumbass bastard".
    
    Chris

RE: 357.34 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085"

> do you really think anybody's going to vote for Clinton because Jack
> DelBalso uses disrespectful language?

Are you really so blind as to not see how badly the Republican Mud has
backfired?

If you like Mr Clinton,  throw some more.


Phil

    Ya know what???We need Silent Cal back!

    Oh yeah, I forgot:
    
    "...Constitution-wreckin', freedom-limitin', gun-snatchin',
     baby-brain-suckin', funeral-gigglin', munchin' motormouth."
    
    Chris

	Cal Ripken would make a great President. At least we know he isn't
afraid to work consistently. 

    Phil:
    
    u didn't have a problem with candidate clinton smearing then-president
    clinton around the barn and back...u r just like the rest of the
    limoliberals....u casn dish it out, but ya can't take it!
    
    have a good week!

    last note was supposed to say then-president bush....phil had me so
    worked up :-)

I happen to agree with Phil, but not necessarily that it will change
anyone's vote.

You (people who use name-calling) lose all credibility when attempting to
discuss anything of a serious nature. Could it be that your
statements/arguments are so weak, or that you can't precisely make the point,
so you feel the need to start name-calling? This must give you some sort of
satisfaction. 

It's very similar to the way Morton Downey would conduct his show (can't speak
for Rush)... if the audience appeared to be actually listeneing too intently
to the guest, possibly seeing his point of view, Morton would cut him off, 
and the name-calling would begin, in an attempt to bring the audience back.
Of course, this worked all the time because the audience were all just a bunch 
of low-li... I mean, reasonable, intelligent people!

Bob

    Dry up Mush Mouse!!!

    
    Ahhh... I see... it's not okay to call someone "Slick", but it's okay
    to allude to another as "old" and "cripple" and "tired" and "this
    campaign will tell on him"...
    
    
     Hypocrisy knows no bounds...
    

I am reminded, from my days working with a fellow mechanic who was Korean,
that there was a type of street person (typically young male) in Korea
whose livelihood was petty crime (sometimes not so petty):

The term for them was "slick-boy".

re: .44

Aren't you putting the cart BEFORE the horse?

Like, if you call the prez "slick", EXPECT to have "your guy" called
old, crippled and tired.

Glad to help clear this up.
\john

Name calling is a fundemental part of politics. The good ol' U.S. of A.
doens't even have a monopoly much less one party, persuasion or pedant.

So, it's bound to be Slick Willie vs Boob Dull.

    Face it \John, being tired and crippled is something that comes with
    age.  Somebody's character, however, can be changed.
    
    This administration will go down as being riddled in scams and stink.
    
    -Jack

re: .48 (JackM)

I think my parse-o-meter is on the blink.

Is being able to change ones character a good thing, or a bad thing?
Since Dole can't change his age/crippleness/tiredness, is that a good
thing or a bad thing?

And what does "riddled in scam" mean?

Why don't you SAVE TIME and EFFORT?  SUM UP your feelings:

    I support, and vote for, Republicans.  At their worst,
    they are better than Democrats at their best.  I would
    never support, nor vote for, Democrats.

At least then we won't be tempted to play "locate the hidden
logic," since we'll know ahead of time that there is none.

I thank you.
\john

>    I support, and vote for, Republicans.  At their worst,
>    they are better than Democrats at their best.  I would
>    never support, nor vote for, Democrats.

Very nice summation, \John. Captures all of the key points quite succinctly.

   .49  not a bad mantra for several of the noters in here, actually.

    And with word substitution, pretty good for several others.

      Z  I support, and vote for, Republicans.  At their worst,
      Z  they are better than Democrats at their best.  I would
      Z  never support, nor vote for, Democrats.
    
    Actually, I voted for John Silber when he ran for Governor, and I would
    vote for Sam Nunn in a heartbeat.  I simply don't understand why he or
    a few others in congress would be in bed with those wretched people!
    
    -Jack

>    vote for Sam Nunn in a heartbeat.  I simply don't understand why he or
>    a few others in congress would be in bed with those wretched people!

He's not in bed with those wretched people. He's a democrat!~

    Ohhh?  I didn't know that Tom Foley and others switched parties!!!

Sam Nunn sleeps with Democrats?!

    
    I thought Nunns were celibate.
    

    
    Argh....

    He's a Blue Nunn

  That's why it's nice not to vote along party lines, Doctah.  Then
  all you have to worry about is people calling you wimpy.

from H. L. MENCKEN
  
*   In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be
    thankful for. As for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.
   
*   Liberals have many tails and chase them all.

    Wimpy wasn't that the name of popeye's hamburger friend?

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for influence peddling today

re: .50 (jackD)

>Very nice summation, \John. Captures all of the key points quite succinctly.

Yeah, like I've complained about before: you and your friends will vote for
the biggest loser Republican, just so the Democrat opponent won't win.  No
concern for "What a pig that conservative is", no thought for "God, do we
REALLY want this guy in office?", just, "Oh well, he's running against
a Democrat, ought to vote for him!"

Wow, thanks loads for your thoughtful, considerate, tempered selection.  NOT.

Of course, I could have misinterpreted your comment.  Maybe you, too, were
laughing at JackM's simpleton view.  We'll see.

\john

    >That's why it's nice not to vote along party lines, Doctah.
    
     Works for me, when I know something about the candidates.

>           <<< Note 357.65 by WAHOO::LEVESQUE "show us the team!" >>>
    
>     Works for me, when I know something about the candidates.

	Why yes, of course, not a drop of Republican blood flows
	through your veins.  Independent all the way. ;>
 

Z    Of course, I could have misinterpreted your comment.  Maybe you, too,
Z    were laughing at JackM's simpleton view.  We'll see.
    
    May the fleas from 10,000 diseased camels infest your armpits!

    tee hee

| <<< Note 357.67 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| May the fleas from 10,000 diseased camels infest your armpits!

	So you don't want them to leeching off of you anymore, huh? :-)

    >	Why yes, of course, not a drop of Republican blood flows
    >	through your veins.  Independent all the way. ;>
    
     You need just a bit more sneer, dear.

   .68  Oph, that speaks volumes about you, I hope you realize.
	<stern look>

    
>     You need just a bit more sneer, dear.

	I am on give-you-a-hard-time duty, cutie.

    I'm on "refuse all packages I didn't send for" duty. :-)

    .71
    
    i realize this.  and i'm sorry.  i'll try for more
    substance next time.  really. 

    Glen Marie:
    
    You showed great restraint in .69!  Thank you.
    
    

   .74  well i should hope so.  it's that credibility thing.
	you know.

    
      It is interesting how absolutely mushy summer polls are.  Not
     in the 'Box, mind you, but I think a lot of the electorate
     dithers about the candidates and changes its mind repeatedly.
    
      You will see both candidates move towards mushiness themselves
     by August.  Dole wants to draft an abortion plank that is
     completely incomprehensible, and he'll probably get it.  And
     Clinton will wrap himself in flags.
    
      bb

    clinton wouldn't dare wrap himself in flags.

    
    
    >clinton wouldn't dare wrap himself in flags.
    
    Why the hell not?? He's trying everything else under the sun to look
    good and/or win...
    

    This is going to be a strange one.  I believe that both Clinton and
    Dole each have a solid 40% (or is that... 43%? :-)) support base,
    and that at any given moment the other 20% is for either one or the
    other, but is very "soft" and subject to flip back and forth depending
    on the morning headlines.
    
    If that's true, then the election will probably be decided in the
    last month, if not the last week, of the campaign.
    
    All this, of course, depends on the one big remaining unknown of
    the election:  Dole's VP choice.  He can play it safe, or take a
    chance.  Naturally, I'm for the latter option.  He should choose
    his own wife.  You'd be able to hear the D.C. mental gears stripping
    all the way up here in New England.
    
    Chris

    cuz all the vets and vet-wannabees would start 
    frothing at the mouth.

    
    
    So? What's your point??
    

    my point is that he's too politically savvy to 
    pull flag-wrapping stunt.  
    
    and what's yours?

    
    That I certainly wouldn't "froth"...
    
    But I suppose it wouldn't matter much, since he can't sink any lower from
    my viewpoint..
    
    

| <<< Note 357.75 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| You showed great restraint in .69!  Thank you.

	No problem. Aunt Jack. And is Marie the french version of Mary? :-) Cuz
I think I might be more of the latter. :-0

    oh, sure he can, andy.

| <<< Note 357.78 by LANDO::OLIVER_B "snapdragons. discuss." >>>

| clinton wouldn't dare wrap himself in flags.

	Well I thought it was legal to burn flags now..... ;-)

    
    
    >oh, sure he can, andy.
    
    Sigh... you're right... I musta let the whole sordid Beltway blind me
    to what was obvious to you...
    

   
            POLL FINDS VOTERS CARE MOST ABOUT ISSUES, NOT CHARACTER
   
   WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, June 27) -- While some believe the character
   issue is a ticking time bomb for President Bill Clinton, voters
   continue to shrug off the various scandals impugning his integrity,
   according to a new poll. [poll]
   
   The same day Clinton's personnel security chief resigned for
   improperly obtaining some 700 FBI files, a new NBC-Wall Street Journal
   poll found that Clinton's lead over presumptive GOP nominee Robert
   Dole was holding steady at 17 percentage points.
   
   It's The Issues, Stupid Though 68 percent thought the administration
   was looking for dirt in the FBI files -- that it wasn't just a
   bureaucratic snafu -- those surveyed agreed, 62-25 percent, that
   issues matter more than character or values in the campaign.
   
   The top issues were education, crime, drugs, health care and moral
   values. Most believed Dole would outperform the president only in
   promoting moral values. [poll]
   
   The telephone survey of 1,637 registered voters had a sampling error
   of +/- 2.5 percentage points.
   
   Clinton's character negatives are on the rise, according to the poll.
   Over half of those surveyed thought the president has lied about
   Whitewater, and 35 percent believe he broke the law.
   
   Also taking a hit (though not hurting her husband much) was First Lady
   Hillary Rodham Clinton. Some 44 percent view her negatively (35
   percent positively), and 62 percent think she is lying about her
   involvement in the Whitewater affair. But most surveyed said Mrs.
   Clinton would not affect their vote, and half of those surveyed think
   Mrs. Clinton is being targeted because she is a woman.

    
    
    Even if the issues are non-existent and/or plain rhetoric...
    

re: .90 (AndyK)

>    Even if the issues are non-existent and/or plain rhetoric...

    Yeah, like the "flag burning amendment" the Republicans are pushing...

>                            -< Sheeps is sheeps... >-
    You said it...
\john

    Z   The top issues were education, crime, drugs, health care and moral
    Z   values. Most believed Dole would outperform the president only in
    Z   promoting moral values. [poll]
    
    This is correct.  Clinton is better educated, committed more crime,
    done more drugs, and is better fit than Bob Dole.  Of course so is
    gentle Ben at Walpole but who cares?

    
    
    re: .91
    
    >Yeah, like the "flag burning amendment" the Republicans are pushing...
    
    Too bad we never sat down and talked politics, John... You might learn
    that I have no use for the "amendment" or its supporters...
    
    But you've been jumping to many conclusions lately, so it doesn't
    surprise me...
    
    >You said it...
    
    
    
     I sure did... did I hit a nerve??

    Andy can tangle with the best of 'em!  8)

    
    	"Tangle" and "untie oneself" are unfortunately 2 different
    	things, though.
    

    \John, most people thought the Flag Burning Ammendment was a stupid
    idea.

[http:/www.cnn.com]
                                      
            Poll Shows Democrats Viewed More Favorably Than GOP
                                      
       NEW YORK (AllPolitics, Aug. 8) -- As Republicans gear up for a
     splashy, high-tech convention, a new poll released by The New York
   Times shows that, for the first time since 1992, the public has a more
            favorable view of the Democratic Party than the GOP.
                                      
     In a survey of registered voters, 55 percent viewed the Democratic
     Party favorably, 39 percent unfavorably. The Republican Party was
    viewed favorably by 46 percent, while 47 percent had an unfavorable
                                  opinion.
                                      
     That's a switch from Aug. 1992, when the GOP had higher favorable
   ratings than the its rivals. Some 1,116 adults across the country were
   contacted by telephone Aug. 5-6, and the survey had a margin of error
                         of +/-3 percentage points.
                                      
   The poll found that if the election were held today, 56 percent would
    back President Bill Clinton and 34 percent would vote for likely GOP
    nominee Robert Dole. The president's favorable ratings were near the
                     highest of his term at 58 percent.
                                      
     Republicans might point out that the survey was taken before Dole
   delivered his major address calling for a 15 percent, across-the-board
       tax cut, a proposal still being explained to and judged by the
                                electorate.
                                      
      Dole got at least one good piece of polling news recently on the
     subject of moral leadership. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll conducted
   July 18-21 of 1,010 adults found that more Americans (53 percent) are
      concerned about moral problems than about economic problems (38
   percent). Asked who could provide strong moral leadership, 72 percent
     said Dole, while 58 percent said Clinton. The poll had a sampling
                     error of +/- 3 percentage points.