🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4gf108$65h@news.duke.edu> gronke@acpub.duke.edu (Paul Gronke) writes:
+Buchanan:	27%
+Dole:		26%
+Alexander:	23%
+Forbes:		11%
+
+Thoughts?
+
+--
+gronke@acpub.duke.edu

    Buchanan has gone so far right he is now left again.  He is
willing to say that companies which 'grow' from job cuts are less
profitable overall than those which 'grow' the traditional way,
though nurturing of the workers.

    Further, who can be against men supporting their children?

    As for what he wrote in the past, that could hang him.  It
was intolerant to say the least.  

    In an era when high executives are rewarded for firing their
workers, shrinking the companies, and giving business away for
foreign companies, Buchanan is at least willing to say that is a
key issue Clinton and all the others won't address.


-- 

In article <Dn4oHx.5D4@ecsvax.uncecs.edu> george@nccu.edu (george conklin) writes:
 :   In an era when high executives are rewarded for firing their
 :   workers, shrinking the companies, and giving business away for
 :   foreign companies, Buchanan is at least willing to say that is a
 :   key issue Clinton and all the others won't address.

 George Conklin is just lying.  Bill Clinton and ALL Democrats have been
bemoaning the heartlessness of corporate downsizing for a LONG time.
We DID give you "it's the economy, stupid".  And the recovery was
already underway while we were winning with that line.  But it was
a jobless recovery, and we DID know whose fault that was.  It is really
pathetic that just because Clinton happens not to be out campaigning
right now, and nobody is hearing him SAY it, nobody believes that
Clinton and Democratic politicians generally are MUCH more down on
corporate greed than Buchanan will EVER be.

 The sheer raw hypocrisy that is going on in this campaign has
reached QUITE unbelievable proportions:
We now have BOB DOLE saying that Forbes's flat tax is a bad thing
because it is a windfall for RICH People!  Since when has ANY
Republican EVER been opposed to anything that was good for rich
people??? Can you say TRICKLE-DOWN???  Bob Dole has been presiding
over a Senate that assisted the top 1% of wealth-holders in amassing
HALF the net increase in the whole economy's wealth since he first
took power in 1981.  Dole CLAIMS he's concerned about a flat tax 
benefiting the rich, but Bob Dole is just lying.  If he actually gave 
a shit about that, we wouldn't be hearing all this crap from their 
side about eliminating capital gains taxes.

Buchanan CLAIMS he's concerned about little people.
Little people are stupid enough to fall for that, so he
can't be dismissed.  But he is NOT concerned about little
people or he wouldn't BE a Republican.

Still, a politician who is willing to stand up for
average white Americans' standard social values
AND their standard economic class interests is an innovation
that is long overdue.  If he should pick Keyes as a running
mate, now, some black Baptists might start switching parties.
If THAT were to happen, I might just have to move.
Fortunately, he's much too racist to do that, and, again fortunately,
lots of people know it.  Forbes could do a very patriotic thing for the 
country at large by bankrolling Keyes instead of himself; Keyes is
the only person with the rhetorical skills and ideological credentials
to split that vote.

In article <Dn4z5z.2x5@unx.sas.com>,
   disque@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas Disque) wrote:

>My interpretation is "money isn't the major factor, after all".

Maybe.  The number two person has it.  And this was a small state.  
Let's see what happens when the big battles approach.

>
>I have a question: Why does the AFL/CIO continue to back Clinton,
>when he signed the NAFTA and GATT bills?  It seems to me that they'd
>back Buchanan, since (as far as I know) he's the only candidate who's
>opposed to both of the above?  Does this mean that the AFL/CIO 
supports
>NAFTA and GATT?

It probably means that they don't decide their endorsements based on a 
single issue.  I think NAFTA still hurts Clinton among working class 
voters, but he loses them on this issue to Perot (if he runs), not the 
eventual Repub nominee (presuming that is Dole or Alex, not Buch).

>
>Personally, I think that Dole/Keyes would be the ticket to beat 
Clinton.

Keyes is certainly the most eloquent campaigner in the contest.  His 
race would obviously makes things more interesting (though I don't 
think it will sway too many African Americans -- Clinton's greater 
worry has to be simple lack of excitement and lower turnout.)  Don't 
you think his conservative views on social issues might alienate young 
and moderate Repubs and Indeps?  Do we have a "record" on Keyes a'la 
Buchanan saying loony things?

--
gronke@acpub.duke.edu

In article <4gf108$65h@news.duke.edu>, gronke@acpub.duke.edu (Paul Gronke) writes:
|> Buchanan:    27%
|> Dole:                26%
|> Alexander:   23%
|> Forbes:              11%
|> 
|> Thoughts?
|> 
|> --
|> gronke@acpub.duke.edu

My interpretation is "money isn't the major factor, after all".

I have a question: Why does the AFL/CIO continue to back Clinton,
when he signed the NAFTA and GATT bills?  It seems to me that they'd
back Buchanan, since (as far as I know) he's the only candidate who's
opposed to both of the above?  Does this mean that the AFL/CIO supports
NAFTA and GATT?

Personally, I think that Dole/Keyes would be the ticket to beat Clinton.

Tom Disque
"My opinions, not SAS Institute's"

In article <4gfrec$bp6@news.duke.edu>, gronke@acpub.duke.edu (Paul Gronke) writes:
|> In article <Dn4z5z.2x5@unx.sas.com>,
|>    disque@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas Disque) wrote:
|> 
|> >
|> >Personally, I think that Dole/Keyes would be the ticket to beat 
|> Clinton.
|> 
|> Keyes is certainly the most eloquent campaigner in the contest.  His 
|> race would obviously makes things more interesting (though I don't 
|> think it will sway too many African Americans -- Clinton's greater 
|> worry has to be simple lack of excitement and lower turnout.)  Don't 
|> you think his conservative views on social issues might alienate young 
|> and moderate Repubs and Indeps?  Do we have a "record" on Keyes a'la 
|> Buchanan saying loony things?

I interpret from the line above that you think 'the younger the Republican,
the less conservative (s)he is'.  My personal experience is that the opposite
is true, but I haven't taken any surveys.

I think Dole/Keyes will draw more of a black vote than any other Republican
ticket.  Dole, if elected, will be (I think) the oldest President-elect in
history.  That would give Keyes the best chance any black in American history
ever had to be president.

I haven't heard much on Keye's record.  I think the press is either hesitant to
attack him, or they don't think he draws enough attention to warrant coverage.
I'm sure Keyes will draw the pro-life vote.  As far as pro-choice Republicans,
I think the number of those who'll be driven away by this single issue will be
small.

|> 
|> --
|> gronke@acpub.duke.edu

Tom Disque
"My opinions, not SAS Institute's"

Paul Gronke (gronke@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
> Keyes is certainly the most eloquent campaigner in the contest.  His 
> race would obviously makes things more interesting (though I don't 
> think it will sway too many African Americans -- Clinton's greater 
> worry has to be simple lack of excitement and lower turnout.)  Don't 
> you think his conservative views on social issues might alienate young 
> and moderate Repubs and Indeps?  Do we have a "record" on Keyes a'la 
> Buchanan saying loony things?

Well, saying he's entirely made out of meat, for one.

--
eraserhead@iglou.com / Not the murderous director / Tape trades welcome
See the Soap WWW page at: http://www.rahul.net/ndanger/soap/soap.html

In article <Dn4oHx.5D4@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, george@nccu.edu (george
conklin) wrote:

>     In an era when high executives are rewarded for firing their
> workers, shrinking the companies, and giving business away for
> foreign companies, Buchanan is at least willing to say that is a
> key issue Clinton and all the others won't address.


Are you trying to claim that there was a time when executives were
rewarded for lowering the Return on Investment of shareholders?
Are you trying to claim that executives are rewarded for losing 
business to foreign companies with lower costs?

Buchanan has an issue, that in a world economy there is a leveling
effect that tends to bring down our standard of living and raise
other standards of living.  This does not go over well with a lot
of people in this country.  We got soft as we got affluent and 
failed to think this time would ever come.


Buchanan suggests isolationism which will
start trade wars and cause a global depression.  There must be a
better way.

-- 
Alan Bomberger     | (408)-992-2748  | alan@oes.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume 

Paul Gronke (gronke@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: Buchanan:	27%
: Dole:		26%
: Alexander:	23%
: Forbes:		11%

: Thoughts?

: --
: gronke@acpub.duke.edu

Paul Gronke <gronke@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

>Buchanan:	27%
>Dole:		26%
>Alexander:	23%
>Forbes:		11%

>Thoughts?

Yep; Four More Years of Clinton/Gore.

KTC
-- 
     Kelly T Conlon / conlon@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca / "Any belief in 
   Creators or Purpose is wishful thinking. And when you point out that 
  perhaps ALL thinking is wishful, reactions of intense irritation give 
evidence that we are not dealing with logic but with faith." WS Burroughs

In article <4gf108$65h@news.duke.edu>, gronke@acpub.duke.edu (Paul Gronke) writes...
>Buchanan:	27%
>Dole:		26%
>Alexander:	23%
>Forbes:		11%

Buchanan is getting the far right vote.  I don't see him getting more
than 33% in a president election, and I doubt he'd do any better against
one other republican.  Heck, if forced to choose, I'd choose Reagan over
Buchanan.  

********************************************************************
              NSF  FBI  BATF  CIA  SS  DEA  MI  IRS
                   (All the King's horses...)

Amtrak - Oklahoma City - Waco - Branch Davidians - World Trade Center
bomb - automatic weapons - overthrow - anarchy - FBI - BATF
warning system - rail - railcar - note - militia - revolution
military hardware - OKC - ammonium nitrate - fuel oil - ANFO
illegal - contraband - drugs - smuggle - NSA - CIA - cocaine
Mena - Ruby - Farrakahn - Ridge - Whitewater - Paula Jones - Elvis
derailment - desert - Arizona - Gistapo - Missing Link - nazis
reattached wires - locomotive - terrorist - G-Men - babboons 

Is this sentence a discussion of abortion?
Coming soon: The seven dirty words...
********************************************************************

I'm just wondering if the republican party has ever heard of anything 
called the big picture. If any presidential years is theirs for the 
taking, its this one. Yet, this primary season is already gearing up to 
cement their doom. Buchannan, Dole, and Forbes battle it out with 
negative ads, gloom and doom, and just plain mean-spiritedness. On the 
other hand,Clinton gets to parade around visiting schools and making 
nice. Now exactly which activity will the voters remeber and look 
favorably upon when the election comes around? The closeness of the 
vote in the New Hampshire primary ensures that this negative activity is 
going to continue. I think the republicans really need to be concerned 
about getting a candidate, as history tells us that intra-party 
divisiveness does not win the presidency. As a Clinton supporter, I'm 
sitting back and loving it. Nothing makes me happier than seeing the 
party shoot themselves in the foot. But for all you republicans out 
there, get together and make up your mind now, or don't bother showing up 
in November.

On Wed, 21 Feb 1996, Paul Gronke wrote:

> 
> In article <Dn4z5z.2x5@unx.sas.com>,
>    disque@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas Disque) wrote:
> 
> >
> >Personally, I think that Dole/Keyes would be the ticket to beat 
> Clinton.
> 
> Keyes is certainly the most eloquent campaigner in the contest.  His 
> race would obviously makes things more interesting (though I don't 
> think it will sway too many African Americans -- Clinton's greater 
> worry has to be simple lack of excitement and lower turnout.)  Don't 
> you think his conservative views on social issues might alienate young 
> and moderate Repubs and Indeps?  Do we have a "record" on Keyes a'la 
> Buchanan saying loony things?
> 
i am almost sure that keyes (while he may have a golden throat) has gone 
on record with ridiculous statements on a par with pat's best.  if you 
saw the GOP horde on larry king about a month ago keyes was talking like 
a preacher--he is way too focused on religion and on a far deeper level 
than just being pro-life.  keyes has not gotten as much press as buchanan 
but if the spotlight were focused on him you would hear some fairly 
absurd religious rhetoric.  furthermore, it would be foolish for dole to 
pick keyes as his vp, because he turns off more voters than he attracts.  
i think it is foolish to think that blacks will vote for a dole/keyes 
ticket just because keyes is black and ignore their traditional 
allegiance to the democratic party.  whitman would be a better choice for 
vp because the moderates are the constituency that the gop needs to be 
looking to attract.  probably the far-righters will vote for any ticket 
with dole at the top of it anyway and adding whitman to the ticket will 
attract more (moderates and women) than it will turn away (far-righters)

lyndon

In article <alan-2102961525110001@129.212.49.115> alan@oes.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger) writes:
>In article <Dn4oHx.5D4@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>, george@nccu.edu (george
>conklin) wrote:
>
>>     In an era when high executives are rewarded for firing their
>> workers, shrinking the companies, and giving business away for
>> foreign companies, Buchanan is at least willing to say that is a
>> key issue Clinton and all the others won't address.
>
>
>Are you trying to claim that there was a time when executives were
>rewarded for lowering the Return on Investment of shareholders?
>Are you trying to claim that executives are rewarded for losing 
>business to foreign companies with lower costs?

   Companies which 'grow' through massive dismissals grow more
slowly than those who build up the business, even in 'mature'
industries.   







>Buchanan has an issue, that in a world economy there is a leveling
>effect that tends to bring down our standard of living and raise
>other standards of living.  This does not go over well with a lot
>of people in this country.  We got soft as we got affluent and 
>failed to think this time would ever come.

       Secular eschatology does not wash with most people.



>
>Buchanan suggests isolationism which will
>start trade wars and cause a global depression.  There must be a
>better way.
>
>-- 
>Alan Bomberger     | (408)-992-2748  | alan@oes.amdahl.com
>Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
>It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. - David Hume 

   You should want to export the Amdahl corporation to Mexico,
unemploy yourself, and donate your ;job to someone who now does
not have on there?  Go ahead do it.  You have become soft and
need the experience.


-- 

Kelly Davis <kjd1@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:
>I'm just wondering if the republican party has ever heard of anything 
>called the big picture. If any presidential years is theirs for the 
>taking, its this one. Yet, this primary season is already gearing up to 
>cement their doom. Buchannan, Dole, and Forbes battle it out with 
>negative ads, gloom and doom, and just plain mean-spiritedness. On the 
>other hand,Clinton gets to parade around visiting schools and making 
>nice. Now exactly which activity will the voters remeber and look 
>favorably upon when the election comes around? The closeness of the 
>vote in the New Hampshire primary ensures that this negative activity is 
>going to continue. I think the republicans really need to be concerned 
>about getting a candidate, as history tells us that intra-party 
>divisiveness does not win the presidency. As a Clinton supporter, I'm 
>sitting back and loving it. Nothing makes me happier than seeing the 
>party shoot themselves in the foot. But for all you republicans out 
>there, get together and make up your mind now, or don't bother showing up 
>in November.
I'm glad you're enjoying the fun.  As someone who believes Clinton's presidency will go down in the annals of history as irrelevent =
and inescapably forgettable, I must caution you on your somewhat short memeory.  All, and I repeat all, primaries are of this type. =
 Anyone out there wringing their hands in fear (Repubs) or anticipation (Dems) over the negativity of this campaign has only to look=
 back four years.  All of the things we heard about Bill, the womanizing, the Whitewater, etc. were all brought out in the Democrati=
c primary by the other Democrat candidates.  It is one of the advantages of our system that the candidates who are eventually select=
ed (Rs and Ds) almost always unite the party behind them.  To say that the republicans need to make up their collective mind now is =
silly.  However, we will have to listen to the media portray this as the most negative campaign in history, which it is most certain=
ly not, IMHO.

Enjoy yourself,
Mike

In article <4gfrec$bp6@news.duke.edu>, gronke@acpub.duke.edu (Paul Gronke) writes:
|> In article <Dn4z5z.2x5@unx.sas.com>,
|>    disque@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas Disque) wrote:
|> 
|> >I have a question: Why does the AFL/CIO continue to back Clinton,
|> >when he signed the NAFTA and GATT bills?  It seems to me that they'd
|> >back Buchanan, since (as far as I know) he's the only candidate who's
|> >opposed to both of the above?  Does this mean that the AFL/CIO 
|> supports
|> >NAFTA and GATT?
|> 
|> It probably means that they don't decide their endorsements based on a 
|> single issue.  I think NAFTA still hurts Clinton among working class 
|> voters, but he loses them on this issue to Perot (if he runs), not the 
|> eventual Repub nominee (presuming that is Dole or Alex, not Buch).

I would have thought that, BY DEFINITION, the AFL/CIO is a single issue
group.  Does this group not exist solely to ensure the continued employment
of its members?  But let's assume that you're correct (because you are).
What are the other issues?  What are the AFL/CIO's positions on those
issues?  And what the hell does it have to do with whether Joe Blue-Collar
has a job next week?  And what gives them the right to steal union dues
from many Republicans and use that money to target Republican candidates
for defeat this fall?

|> 
|> --
|> gronke@acpub.duke.edu

Thomas Disque <disque@sauron.unx.sas.com> wrote:

>I have a question: Why does the AFL/CIO continue to back Clinton,
>when he signed the NAFTA and GATT bills?  

Probably because the AFL/CIO is wise enough to realize that trade wars 
cause unemployment to rise and the dollar to fall.

KTC


-- 
     Kelly T Conlon / conlon@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca / "Any belief in 
   Creators or Purpose is wishful thinking. And when you point out that 
  perhaps ALL thinking is wishful, reactions of intense irritation give 
evidence that we are not dealing with logic but with faith." WS Burroughs

In article <Dn72nC.7np@unx.sas.com>,
   disque@sauron.unx.sas.com (Thomas Disque) wrote:
>I would have thought that, BY DEFINITION, the AFL/CIO is a single issue
>group.  Does this group not exist solely to ensure the continued employment
>of its members?  But let's assume that you're correct (because you are).
>What are the other issues?  What are the AFL/CIO's positions on those
>issues?  And what the hell does it have to do with whether Joe Blue-Collar
>has a job next week?  And what gives them the right to steal union dues
>from many Republicans and use that money to target Republican candidates
>for defeat this fall?

1) COPE, the political wing of the AFL/CIO, is not paid for out of union dues.

2) By definition?  Sure, by definition, they are concerned with issues that 
effect labor and employment.  But NAFTA is just one of many things that 
effect employment.  Here are some others:

 - OSHA and workplace safety
 - health care
 - pension plans (can corporations declare bankruptcy and escape obligations)
 - minimum wage
 - unionization issues (makeup of the NLRB, worker replacement)
 - corporate restructuring, offshore manufacturing
 - worker retraining, other industrial policy issues

I could go on.  These just popped into my head.

AFL/CIO isn't a single issue group.	
+
--
gronke@acpub.duke.edu

On 22 Feb 1996, mike Watson wrote:

> Kelly Davis <kjd1@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

> >I'm just wondering if the republican party has ever heard of anything
> >called the big picture. If any presidential years is theirs for the
> >taking, its this one. Yet, this primary season is already gearing up to
> >cement their doom. Buchannan, Dole, and Forbes battle it out with
> >negative ads, gloom and doom, and just plain mean-spiritedness. On the
> >other hand,Clinton gets to parade around visiting schools and making
> >nice. Now exactly which activity will the voters remeber and look
> >favorably upon when the election comes around? The closeness of the
> >vote in the New Hampshire primary ensures that this negative activity is
> >going to continue. I think the republicans really need to be concerned
> >about getting a candidate, as history tells us that intra-party
> >divisiveness does not win the presidency. As a Clinton supporter, I'm
> >sitting back and loving it. Nothing makes me happier than seeing the
> >party shoot themselves in the foot. But for all you republicans out
> >there, get together and make up your mind now, or don't bother showing up
> >in November.

> I'm glad you're enjoying the fun.  As someone who believes Clinton's 
> presidency will go down in the annals of history as irrelevent and 
> inescapably forgettable, I must caution you on your somewhat short 
> memeory.  All, and I repeat all, primaries are of this type.  Anyone out 
> there wringing their hands in fear (Repubs) or anticipation (Dems) over 
> the negativity of this campaign has only to look back four years.  All 
> of the things we heard about Bill, the womanizing, the Whitewater, etc. 
> were all brought out in the Democratic primary by the other Democrat 
> candidates.  It is one of the advantages of our system that the 
> candidates who are eventually selected (Rs and Ds) almost always unite 
> the party behind them.  To say that the republicans need to make up 
> their collective mind now is silly.  However, we will have to listen to 
> the media portray this as the most negative campaign in history, which 
> it is most certainly not, IMHO. > 
> Enjoy yourself,
> Mike
> 

Mike, with all due respect, in my opinion you are dead wrong.  there is a 
fundamental difference between this GOP primary race and any other recent 
primaries, even ones with an unopposed incumbent president.  the 
difference is that, as with the democrats in '92, the negative statements 
have generally focused on so-called "character issues"--i.e., skeletons 
in the closet--with the general party platform remaining relatively 
well-defined and the understanding that any of the candidates would run 
on this platform if nominated.  this year's gop primaries, on the other 
hand, feature candidates who have fundamentally and completely different 
visions of the direction that the party should take.  you notice that the 
negativity in this campaign has been focused more on policy issues rather 
than on calling one's opponent scum.  this could be a watershed year for 
the gop; in my mind, the question is which wing of the party will split 
off: the libertarian, small-government branch or the social-conservative 
types who want to legislate morality.  I have also heard this rift 
defined as populists vs. defenders of big-business (traditional republicans).
either way, maybe i am naive as a result of not having seen enough 
presidential campaigns, but i find it hard to believe that the unity of 
the republican party is not in serious trouble.

lyndon

In article <4ghvfg$ajq@ussun2n.glaxo.com>, mike Watson
<~mw23671@glaxo.com> wrote:


>I'm glad you're enjoying the fun.  As someone who believes Clinton's
presidency will go down in the annals of history as irrelevent =
>and inescapably forgettable, I must caution you on your somewhat short
memeory.  All, and I repeat all, primaries are of this type. =
> Anyone out there wringing their hands in fear (Repubs) or anticipation
(Dems) over the negativity of this campaign has only to look=
> back four years.  All of the things we heard about Bill, the womanizing,
the Whitewater, etc. were all brought out in the Democrati=
>c primary by the other Democrat candidates.  It is one of the advantages
of our system that the candidates who are eventually select=
>ed (Rs and Ds) almost always unite the party behind them.  To say that
the republicans need to make up their collective mind now is =
>silly.  However, we will have to listen to the media portray this as the
most negative campaign in history, which it is most certain=
>ly not, IMHO.
>
>Enjoy yourself,
>Mike

Reply unreadable. Discard. Oh, BTW, how does your employer feel about
posting your personal views from an account completely subsidized by
them there that employ you?!? Eh?!?

Nice post.  Just wanted to make sure it didn't get buried in the 
response/reresponse to New Hampshire.

If you think of anti-communism as the "glue" which held together the 
separate streams in post Goldwater Republicanism (stealing ideas from 
E.J. Dionne, _Why Americans Hate Politics_), then Lyndon's points are 
right on target.  The cleavages in the Republican party between big 
business and populism, libertianism and social conservatism, are 
evident in this primary campaign.

I don't think the situation is as dangerous as Lyndon, however, 
assuming the eventual nominee is Dole.  Like Bush and Reagan before, 
Dole with toss a bone to the social conservatives at the convention, 
cede control of the Dept of Education to them (if not outright 
eliminiating it), and give them a strong voice in court nominations.  
But his admin. otherwise will be filled with establishment type 
Republicans, Lugar, Duberstein, etc. etc.  

In article 
<Pine.SOL.3.91.960223184543.17551A-100000@carr1.acpub.duke.edu>,
   Lyndon Allin <lka2@acpub.duke.edu> wrote:

>Mike, with all due respect, in my opinion you are dead wrong.  there 
is a 
>fundamental difference between this GOP primary race and any other 
recent 
>primaries, even ones with an unopposed incumbent president.  the 
>difference is that, as with the democrats in '92, the negative 
statements 
>have generally focused on so-called "character issues"--i.e., 
skeletons 
>in the closet--with the general party platform remaining relatively 
>well-defined and the understanding that any of the candidates would 
run 
>on this platform if nominated.  this year's gop primaries, on the 
other 
>hand, feature candidates who have fundamentally and completely 
different 
>visions of the direction that the party should take.  you notice that 
the 
>negativity in this campaign has been focused more on policy issues 
rather 
>than on calling one's opponent scum.  this could be a watershed year 
for 
>the gop; in my mind, the question is which wing of the party will 
split 
>off: the libertarian, small-government branch or the 
social-conservative 
>types who want to legislate morality.  I have also heard this rift 
>defined as populists vs. defenders of big-business (traditional 
republicans).
>either way, maybe i am naive as a result of not having seen enough 
>presidential campaigns, but i find it hard to believe that the unity 
of 
>the republican party is not in serious trouble.
>
>lyndon
>

In article <scrutinizer-2502962128350001@grail604.nando.net>,
Scrutinizer <scrutinizer@catachresis.com> wrote:
>In article <4ghvfg$ajq@ussun2n.glaxo.com>, mike Watson
><~mw23671@glaxo.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
>Reply unreadable. Discard. Oh, BTW, how does your employer feel about
>posting your personal views from an account completely subsidized by
>them there that employ you?!? Eh?!?

Well, I don't about his, but mine doesn't care as long as I do it on *my*
time, which I'm doing (lunch hour).  How 'bout yours?

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Tom Wilson                    |                                       |
|  SAS Institute Inc.            |  If you read this sentence, it won't  |
|  sasctw@unx.sas.com            |  tell you anything.                   |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|          All opinions are mine.  I don't speak for SAS.                |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Reply unreadable. Discard. Oh, BTW, how does your employer feel about
>posting your personal views from an account completely subsidized by
>them there that employ you?!? Eh?!?

First, others could read the post, if you found it unreadable, I
apologize.  Secondly, "them here that employ me" provide access to this 
news group which I read, along with more technical groups, on my breaks
and at lunch and, if they find it unsuitable, they can tell me or issue 
a policy.  (All of which is none of your concern and not to the point of
the response.)  

In article <21FEB199622091632@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (SETH J. FEHRS) writes:
 :   Buchanan is getting the far right vote.  I don't see him getting more
 :   than 33% in a president election,

That is irrelevant, since we are not going to HAVE "a" 
presidential election.  We are going to have 51 presidential
elections.  If Buchanan is on the ballot, he will CERTAINLY WIN 
the ONLY one of these 51 elections that Seth J. Fehrs and I could 
vote in, namely the one in North Carolina.  The fact that Jesse Helms 
will be on the ballot at the same time OUGHT to give some people a 
clue -- Buchanan is NOT to the right of Helms, and Helms has already
made our voters (unlike everybody else's) used to having poor people
vote conservative.  Buchanan is going to kick Dole's butt
in South Carolina -- AND North Carolina, unless Libby comes home
and pulls some strings.  It is simply not the case that he is getting
only the "far right" vote.  He is getting the votes of EVERYbody
in the Republican party who feels at all economically insecure,
because that it is your MOST important issue, if you are insecure --
and Buchanan is the ONLY one talking about it.  Bill Clinton needs
to get the hell out of Washington and start running against
Pat Buchanan RIGHT NOW.  Otherwise, by August, the average
person will think that only moralistic negrophobic ayatollahs
like Buchanan even GIVE a shit about the fact that the average
person's wages are falling.

On 27 Feb 1996, George Greene wrote:

[decent, although paranoid, analysis deleted]

> Pat Buchanan RIGHT NOW.  Otherwise, by August, the average
> person will think that only moralistic negrophobic ayatollahs
> like Buchanan even GIVE a shit about the fact that the average


name-calling is the last bastion of the intellectually bankrupt 
individual.  i dont want to think that about you george, i really dont.  
so go ahead and give me and everyone else some real reasons why we should 
worry about pat's popularity.  i find it to be a bit disquieting, but i 
dont think that throwing around accusations of racism are going to do 
anything but further polarize this debate.  sure, you will make any 
moderate republicans with even a smidgen of white guilt avoid patty like 
the plague, but you will also reinforce his supporters' notion that cries 
of racism are never more than an intellectually lazy person crying wolf.

interesting that you admit that buchanan really does care about the 
common man but all you want clinton to do to counter this is pretend that 
he cares.  that is pretty telling...
this is why i find buchanan's campaign so intriguing:  finally people are 
realizing that they cant just tar and feather him with the racist label 
(either because people dont care or because it just aint true--probably a 
little of both, although i am inclined to believe far more of the latter) 
but they still are not responding to his actual platform (by and large) 
other than with indignant shouts of "extremist!"  i say, go for it pat, i 
may not agree with a single damn thing you say , but rock the boat, rip shit 
up a little and show these entrenched party hacks how to raise hell at 
the grass roots level, because these stuffed suits have got so fat and 
happy on pac money that it might take major surgery for them to pull 
their heads out of their present resting place and actually see with 
their own eyes what is really on the minds of the american people.
sorry for the hostility, it is late and i am tired.

lyndon