🚀 go-pugleaf

I am real happy about the events in iowa. Dole may be electable, but 
barely, and if elected he would be as bland and uncharismatic a president 
as he is a campaigner. Buchanan may not be electable, but at least you always 
know where he is coming from as he has such strong convictions. The greatest 
news is Lamar. Maybe people will take him seriously now, and maybe the 
media will stop giving that ninny Forbes all the free advertising when they
realize he is going nowhere.  Whatever happens down the line, it is good 
to see that there is at least a chance of genuine competition for 
the GOP nomination.  Confirmed for all is the Gramm campaign's 
stillbirth... What does anyone think? Will these caucuses really change 
anything about the race or am I just dreaming that Dole might actually get 
knocked out by someone who is not a shamelessly spineless party hack (as 
I believe him to be)? 

lyndon

Paul Gronke (gronke@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: So, what do we make of the results?

: 1) The religious right, apparently split over 3 or 4 candidates, got 
: the message from Louisiana and settled on their only viable contender, 
: Pat Buchanan.  Buchanan will stay in the race all the way to August, 

My brother called last night from Louisiana to say that Buchanan did so 
well in La. because so many people there thought that David Duke was "too 
soft on minorities."   ;-)

 _______________________________________________
 Ken Kuzenski    AC4RD   kuzen001@acpub.duke.edu
 jkk@galactose.mc.duke.edu   Fidonet: 1:3641/1.1
 _______________________________________________
All disclaimers apply; this is just MHO, not Duke's

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960213212044.22378A-100000@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu> Lyndon Allin <lka2@acpub.duke.edu> writes:

>I am real happy about the events in iowa. Dole may be electable, but 
>barely, and if elected he would be as bland and uncharismatic a president 
>as he is a campaigner.

Bland and uncharismatic don't strike me as that big a drawback when you 
consider the other options.

>Buchanan may not be electable, but at least you always
>know where he is coming from as he has such strong convictions.

Yeah.  "Amerika uber alles."

(snip)

> What does anyone think? Will these caucuses really change
>anything about the race or am I just dreaming that Dole might actually get 
>knocked out by someone who is not a shamelessly spineless party hack (as
>I believe him to be)? 

Err, well, yes.  You're dreaming.  It's going to be Dole.  Get used to it.

Cheers,
David Roberson
dhr@acpub.duke.edu

On Wed, 14 Feb 1996 dhr@acpub.duke.edu wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960213212044.22378A-100000@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu> Lyndon Allin <lka2@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
> 
> >I am real happy about the events in iowa. Dole may be electable, but 
> >barely, and if elected he would be as bland and uncharismatic a president 
> >as he is a campaigner.
> 
> Bland and uncharismatic don't strike me as that big a drawback when you 
> consider the other options.
>
yeah, it would be a shame if we had a president who actually stood firmly 
behind a set of beliefs rather than updating his message every time new 
polls come in. 


 > >Buchanan may not be electable, but at least you always
> >know where he is coming from as he has such strong convictions.
> 
> Yeah.  "Amerika uber alles."
> 
It is easy for so many to so blithely criticize buchanan because so few 
have actually taken a serious look at his platform.  it is too bad that 
you would rather affect an air of witty intolerance than actually listen 
when an intelligent, experienced individual who is genuinely concerned 
about the direction in which america is headed tries to offer some solutions.
> 
> > What does anyone think? Will these caucuses really change
> >anything about the race or am I just dreaming that Dole might actually get 
> >knocked out by someone who is not a shamelessly spineless party hack (as
> >I believe him to be)? 
> 
> Err, well, yes.  You're dreaming.  It's going to be Dole.  Get used to it.
> 
i'm afraid that would be far too depressing.  lets see if the american 
spirit can overcome the ugly, institutionalized two-party system which 
destroys true vision and independent thought.

lyndon

What are the chances that Mr. Buchanan will get the nomination? I don't even 
have a ballot, and he most interests me. I know that he's far right, but he 
seems to be most confident in his beliefs and the most honest among all 
candidates(including Mr. Clinton). They're all competing to be conservative. I 
haven't found one traditional liberalist. Not even Mr. Clinton. He's more like 
a Republican, maybe except a few social issues like abortion. Mr. Buchanan 
might be unable to beat Mr. Clinton even if he gets the nomination. But I 
think his presence symbolizes where America is headed in 21st century. A good 
sign for America, IMO. 



--
Dong-Ick Lee
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
http://www.duke.edu/~dl1/

Dong-Ick Lee (dl1@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: ... Mr. Buchanan
: might be unable to beat Mr. Clinton even if he gets the nomination. But I 
: think his presence symbolizes where America is headed in 21st century. A good 
: sign for America, IMO. 

If you think that a protectionist, racist, intolerant America where non-
Christians need not apply is a good direction, then I guess you're right.

Geoff
--
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
gac@cs.duke.edu
<A HREF="http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gac">Geoff's Web Page</A>

In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960214140743.11586A-100000@godzilla6.acpub.duke.edu> Lyndon Allin <lka2@acpub.duke.edu> writes:

>On Wed, 14 Feb 1996 dhr@acpub.duke.edu wrote:
>> 
>> Bland and uncharismatic don't strike me as that big a drawback when you 
>> consider the other options.
>>
>yeah, it would be a shame if we had a president who actually stood firmly 
>behind a set of beliefs rather than updating his message every time new 
>polls come in. 

That's the point I'm making.  "Bland and uncharismatic," which was your 
assessment of Dole, is indeed preferable to this latest assessment, which I 
assume you apply to Clinton.  Fortunately, there are also other choices 
besides these two candidates (or Buchanan).

And if you are alleging that Buchanan stands so firmly behind his beliefs, 
perhaps you can explain why he drove a Mercedes to give his "America First" 
speeches during the 1992 campaign.  (Try to come up with a better excuse than 
Buchanan used:  blaming his wife.)

> > >Buchanan may not be electable, but at least you always
>> >know where he is coming from as he has such strong convictions.
>> 
>> Yeah.  "Amerika uber alles."
>> 
>It is easy for so many to so blithely criticize buchanan because so few 
>have actually taken a serious look at his platform.

Then there are some of us who criticize Buchanan precisely because we HAVE 
taken a serious look at his platform, and were horrified.  Anti-free-trade, 
anti-religious tolerance, isolationist foreign policy (except in the case of 
the Vietnam War, which he says he demonstrated FOR, although his flat feet 
conveniently kept him out of military service then).

>it is too bad that 
>you would rather affect an air of witty intolerance than actually listen 
>when an intelligent, experienced individual who is genuinely concerned 
>about the direction in which america is headed tries to offer some solutions.

I've listened to Buchanan's "solutions," and found them wanting.  I don't deny 
that Buchanan is intelligent.  But "experienced"?  The man has never held an 
elected office.  He used the political and media contacts he made while 
working for Nixon (and advising Nixon to burn the White House tapes) to build 
himself a career in the media.  I am unconvinced that such experience makes 
him a good choice for president.

(snip)
 
>lets see if the american 
>spirit can overcome the ugly, institutionalized two-party system which 
>destroys true vision and independent thought.

A fine idea, and one I'd like to see come to pass.  Just how do you see 
Buchanan's nomination helping make this happen?  Admittedly, it would drive 
millions of people to drop their Republican party membership like the toxic 
waste it had suddenly become. ...

Cheers,
DR 

dl1@acpub.duke.edu (Dong-Ick Lee) wrote:

>In article <4ftm5a$e0g@news.duke.edu>, gac@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE 
>(Geoff Alex Cohen) wrote:

>|Dong-Ick Lee (dl1@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:

>|: Mr. Buchanan
>|: might be unable to beat Mr. Clinton even if he gets the nomination. But I 
>|: think his presence symbolizes where America is headed in 21st century. A good
>|: sign for America, IMO. 
>|
>|If you think that a protectionist, racist, intolerant America where non-
>|Christians need not apply is a good direction, then I guess you're right.


>Since the Gulf War, America's foreign policy has been too "aggressive". I 
>think it'll be ending soon(no matter who the next leader will be). If Mr. 
>Buchanan becomes the president, at least he won't waste the precious time 
>sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. :p  

>IMO, a leader's enforcing moral righteousness should be appreciated. The 
>president's power comes from the people, and it's used within the limits of 
>the constitution. That's what leaders are for. Being tolerant to anything just 
>doesn't seem desirable. It may be a very convenient way of leading one's life, 
>but certainly not a leadership. 
> 
>It's okay, though. You wouldn't have elected him as a leader, if you didn't 
>like things about him in the first place. It's common that every candidate 
>tries to move towards the center as the election day comes close. In this 
>respect, Mr. Buchanan might be far from being chosen at the election. 

>But I believe he'd be a strong and responsible leader. 

> 

Buchanan says he wants a Christian country.  God help us all! Not to
mention the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, secular humanists, et al.
Buchanan might be a "strong leader" but not a responsible one and I
don't want to be led where he would go.





>--
>Dong-Ick Lee
>Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
>http://www.duke.edu/~dl1/

On Thu, 15 Feb 1996 dhr@acpub.duke.edu wrote:

> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960214140743.11586A-100000@godzilla6.acpub.duke.edu> Lyndon Allin <lka2@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
> 
> >On Wed, 14 Feb 1996 dhr@acpub.duke.edu wrote:
> >> 
> >> Bland and uncharismatic don't strike me as that big a drawback when you 
> >> consider the other options.
> >>
> >yeah, it would be a shame if we had a president who actually stood firmly 
> >behind a set of beliefs rather than updating his message every time new 
> >polls come in. 
> 
> That's the point I'm making.  "Bland and uncharismatic," which was your 
> assessment of Dole, is indeed preferable to this latest assessment, which I 
> assume you apply to Clinton.  Fortunately, there are also other choices 
> besides these two candidates (or Buchanan).

Actually, i think it is fair to say that Dole as well as (although to a 
lesser extent than) clinton has tailored his issue stances in the name of 
political expediency.  dole is both bland and uncharismatic and 
inconsistent in his beliefs.  i am interested in whom you consider to be 
these "other choices."  the only one now seems to be alexander, unless 
his showing in iowa was a mirage (which seems quite possible).

> 
> And if you are alleging that Buchanan stands so firmly behind his beliefs, 
> perhaps you can explain why he drove a Mercedes to give his "America First" 
> speeches during the 1992 campaign.  (Try to come up with a better excuse than 
> Buchanan used:  blaming his wife.)

that is an interesting anecdote, but if that is the best you can do in 
denial of buchanan's strength of conviction....i am not convinced.

> 
> > > >Buchanan may not be electable, but at least you always
> >> >know where he is coming from as he has such strong convictions.
> >> 
> >> Yeah.  "Amerika uber alles."
> >> 
> >It is easy for so many to so blithely criticize buchanan because so few 
> >have actually taken a serious look at his platform.
> 
> Then there are some of us who criticize Buchanan precisely because we HAVE 
> taken a serious look at his platform, and were horrified.  Anti-free-trade, 
> anti-religious tolerance, isolationist foreign policy (except in the case of 
> the Vietnam War, which he says he demonstrated FOR, although his flat feet 
> conveniently kept him out of military service then).
>
I think buchanan would say that there is no inconsistency in having 
supported the VN war and being an isolationist today, considering the 
reasons (whether you agree with them or not) for which we were supposedly 
in vietnam and the lack of similarly compelling (in a geopolitical 
sense, not a humanitarian sense) conflicts today.  
 
> >it is too bad that 
> >you would rather affect an air of witty intolerance than actually listen 
> >when an intelligent, experienced individual who is genuinely concerned 
> >about the direction in which america is headed tries to offer some solutions.
> 
> I've listened to Buchanan's "solutions," and found them wanting.  I don't deny 
> that Buchanan is intelligent.  But "experienced"?  The man has never held an 
> elected office.  He used the political and media contacts he made while 
> working for Nixon (and advising Nixon to burn the White House tapes) to build 
> himself a career in the media.  I am unconvinced that such experience makes 
> him a good choice for president.
>

you are resorting to a tried and true buchanan-bashing technique--just 
associate him with nixon and we are all supposed to think he smells like 
shit.  sorry to break it to you, but there are people out here who have 
not passed a blanket judgment on nixon's presidency and those associated 
with it.  i believe buchanan also served in reagan's press office, and 
experience in media management in my opinion is an excellent 
qualification for a president (just ask jimmy carter...).  buchanan's 
attraction is that he knows how the game is played in and out (dont 
believe for a second that he is an outsider) but has never had to sell 
himself or his views out as most politicians seem to do.
is it a known fact that buchanan advised nixon to burn the tapes?
i doubt you have any proof for this, and if you did i might ask what was 
so wrong with that decision, which IMHO prevented the presidency from 
being further dragged through the mud.  i guess you think nixon should 
have gone to trial?  

> >lets see if the american 
> >spirit can overcome the ugly, institutionalized two-party system which 
> >destroys true vision and independent thought.
> 
> A fine idea, and one I'd like to see come to pass.  Just how do you see 
> Buchanan's nomination helping make this happen?  Admittedly, it would drive 
> millions of people to drop their Republican party membership like the toxic 
> waste it had suddenly become. ...

The pure partisans (a brake on progress, IMHO) would not ditch out on the 
party if they thought buchanan had a chance to win, and his nomination 
would mobilize certain groups (scary ones, as i will be the first to 
admit) which may not usually turn out in high numbers.  the reason 
buchanan could never be elected (and why he will not get the nomination) 
is that he alienates the pete wilson/arlen specter type republicans (who 
actually come closer to representing my beliefs than does buchanan) with his 
adamance about pro-life (the rottenest plank in the GOP platform and one 
that is indefensible for them to hold if they want to maintain thein 
image of the party of small government and individual freedoms) and other 
social issues.  make no mistake, the party faithful would turn out for 
buchanan, but he would bring in none of the marginal/unattached voters 
except for the ones that have in the past been too far to the right to 
find a champion within either of the major parties--not a large enough 
consituency to offset the moderate votes which he would cost the GOP 
ticket.  However, buchanan's candidacy has already forced the republicans 
to listen to some interests (as i said, some scary ones, but still...) 
which do not usually play a role in the platform-shaping process.  this 
is what i would like to see more of:  groups which have been alienated 
from the political system realizing that they need to be vocal and work 
within the existing system in order to extend the limits of acceptable 
discourse.  forbes has done the same thing with the flat tax, although 
people with that much money are never alienated from the political 
system... 

lyndon

On 15 Feb 1996, Ron Archer wrote:

> > But I believe he'd be a strong and responsible leader. 
>  
> Given that Mr. Buchanan has never "led" anything in his
> life, on what would you base such a claim.
> 

sometimes people equate strong convictions, compelling oratory and 
downright intransigence with leadership.
it seems obvious to say that an effective leader in the white house must 
also be able to compromise and build coalitions, but this was supposed to 
be clinton's strong suit and it seems to have backfired on him.  on the 
other had again, americans dont seem to respect the "firm conviction and 
tencaity" of the gingrich republicans.
this could be seen as a huge debate in american politics today.  do we 
need a strong leader who will chart a course and then follow it 
regardless of the consequences or do we need a political weather vane in 
the oval office?  there are arguments to be made for each of these...

lyndon

In article <4ftm5a$e0g@news.duke.edu>, gac@PROBLEM_WITH_INEWS_GATEWAY_FILE 
(Geoff Alex Cohen) wrote:

|Dong-Ick Lee (dl1@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:

|: Mr. Buchanan
|: might be unable to beat Mr. Clinton even if he gets the nomination. But I 
|: think his presence symbolizes where America is headed in 21st century. A good
|: sign for America, IMO. 
|
|If you think that a protectionist, racist, intolerant America where non-
|Christians need not apply is a good direction, then I guess you're right.


Since the Gulf War, America's foreign policy has been too "aggressive". I 
think it'll be ending soon(no matter who the next leader will be). If Mr. 
Buchanan becomes the president, at least he won't waste the precious time 
sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. :p  

IMO, a leader's enforcing moral righteousness should be appreciated. The 
president's power comes from the people, and it's used within the limits of 
the constitution. That's what leaders are for. Being tolerant to anything just 
doesn't seem desirable. It may be a very convenient way of leading one's life, 
but certainly not a leadership. 
 
It's okay, though. You wouldn't have elected him as a leader, if you didn't 
like things about him in the first place. It's common that every candidate 
tries to move towards the center as the election day comes close. In this 
respect, Mr. Buchanan might be far from being chosen at the election. 

But I believe he'd be a strong and responsible leader. 

 







--
Dong-Ick Lee
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
http://www.duke.edu/~dl1/

In article <4g0dhh$7td@news.duke.edu>, scarbowl@mail01.adm.duke.edu (Bill 
Scarborough) wrote:

|Buchanan says he wants a Christian country.  God help us all! Not to
|mention the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, secular humanists, et al.
|Buchanan might be a "strong leader" but not a responsible one and I
|don't want to be led where he would go.


Why should it be a terrible thing? When was America not a Christian country? 
I've never been a Christian, but Christian value is something that you see 
every day in America. Things evolve around it. If Mr. Buchanan(or anyone else) 
succeeds in leading Americans back to church and to live by rules in the 
Bible, things couldn't get better, IMO.   

--
Dong-Ick Lee
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
http://www.duke.edu/~dl1/

Lyndon Allin (lka2@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: On Wed, 14 Feb 1996 dhr@acpub.duke.edu wrote:

: > In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960213212044.22378A-100000@godzilla5.acpub.duke.edu> Lyndon Allin <lka2@acpub.duke.edu> writes:
: > 
: > >I am real happy about the events in iowa. Dole may be electable, but 
: > >barely, and if elected he would be as bland and uncharismatic a president 
: > >as he is a campaigner.
: > 
: > Bland and uncharismatic don't strike me as that big a drawback when you 
: > consider the other options.
: >
: yeah, it would be a shame if we had a president who actually stood firmly 
: behind a set of beliefs rather than updating his message every time new 
: polls come in. 

And those beliefs would be that Sen. Dole doesn't accept money from
homosexual organizations.

No wait, now he does.

Oops.  Sorry, now he doesn't again.

Hold it!  The Senators most recent position on this is that he now
DOES accept money from gay organizations.

Yep, I have to agree that once he has his beliefs in place, he stands
behind them (unless money is involved and then he's willing to bend
his beliefs "just a little" to help the old campaign out!).

Dave Christian

Dong-Ick Lee (dl1@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:

: This is Mr. Buchanan's second run. I remember he's done very well in
: 1992. He almost exhausted Mr. Bush through the campaign, and
: consequently helped Democratic Party. IMO, he's more than verified and
: is going to be a strong leader. Just my personal impression.

Finally, an answer!  Of course Pat Buchanan is a great leader under this
new definition of leadership.  A leader is now someone who exhausts his
allies and ensures victory for his enemies.

Of course under the classical definition of leadership, he is still a
baffoon. 

Mike
-- 

In article <4g4vsf$kn8@news.duke.edu>, msf@cs.duke.edu (Michael S. Fulkerson) wrote:
|Dong-Ick Lee (dl1@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
|
|: This is Mr. Buchanan's second run. I remember he's done very well in
|: 1992. He almost exhausted Mr. Bush through the campaign, and
|: consequently helped Democratic Party. IMO, he's more than verified and
|: is going to be a strong leader. Just my personal impression.
|
|Finally, an answer!  Of course Pat Buchanan is a great leader under this
|new definition of leadership.  A leader is now someone who exhausts his
|allies and ensures victory for his enemies.
|
|Of course under the classical definition of leadership, he is still a
|baffoon. 


At least he won't do nothing but see how the wind blows when in the oval 
office. :p

--
Dong-Ick Lee
Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
http://www.duke.edu/~dl1/

Dong-Ick Lee (dl1@acpub.duke.edu) wrote:
: At least he won't do nothing but see how the wind blows when in the oval 
: office. :p

Yeah, I'm sick of Clinton doing nothing but popular things, like sending
troops to Haiti or Bosnia, standing up to the Republicans call for ending
arts funding, and reaffirming HIV+ people's right to work.

Geoff
--
Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708-0129
gac@cs.duke.edu
<A HREF="http://www.cs.duke.edu/~gac">Geoff's Web Page</A>

I wonder about this "popular things" criticism  Haven't presidents always paid 
attention to public opinion when formulating policy?  Did you know the 
items of the Contract with America were chosen based on whether they garnered 
60% or greater support in a poll?  In a representative democracy, would you 
rather have a president who ignores public opinion?
--
gronke@acpub.duke.edu

Geoff Alex Cohen (gac@cs.duke.edu) wrote:

: Yeah, I'm sick of Clinton doing nothing but popular things, like sending
: troops to Haiti or Bosnia, standing up to the Republicans call for ending
: arts funding, and reaffirming HIV+ people's right to work.

Ah, but these are all very popular acts when judged by the hard core 
liberals. All Clinton cares about is keeping his 43 percent unwaivering 
voting block (who would vote for a dead chicken provided that chicken was 
a Democrat) and grabbing about 4 percent of the undecided. With an 
anticipated third party candidate, 47 percent is all he needs to win the 
election.

Steve Crisp

-- 
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
   Steve Crisp         The "Who and When" of history are insignificant
  crisp@ncsu.edu         relative to the "How and Why." These in turn
 (Future URL here)        pale in comparison to the "Resulting In."
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////