Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!decvax!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Where's the falafel?) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: The Dems (Mostly Hart) Message-ID: <6312@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Mar-84 13:25:28 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.6312 Posted: Mon Mar 19 13:25:28 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 20-Mar-84 02:05:54 EST Organization: DEC Engineering Network Lines: 188 ~~~ I voted for Jesse Jackson in the primary; but I won't mind getting to vote for Gary Hart this November. Hart *does* have new ideas; you just don't hear about them because (1) he's busy countering Mondale, and (2) the media would rather concentrate on (1) than on the issues. I'm sorry to see George McGovern bowing out. He and Jackson were the only ones talking sense (partially due to them not being front-runners). Hart makes a lot of sense himself, but you don't hear about it very much in this campaign. What follows is a collection of ideas and opinions on this issue from the E-Net here at DEC. I add them here in the interest of distributing points of view. (-: Plus, some of them are mine! :-) <_Jym_> | Jym Dyer | Nashua, New Hampshire | ...decvax!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer | -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 12-MAR-1984 21:54 VAXUUM::DYER Meta-X : execute-mlisp-line (setq friendly-flame 1) The main reason the campaign has become so lively is that George McGovern and Jesse Jackson are in it, and they're telling it like it is. I am amazed at the issues they've been able to bring up and actually talk about with national media coverage! It's a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately, neither of these candidates seem to have very much of a chance of winning. We've got three who consider themselves serious contenders for the nomination. It's unfortunate that those who think they have a shot often tend towards mediocrity. For example, there's Gary Hart. Yes, he has new ideas, but we haven't heard much about them lately; he's been busy countering the attacks of the others and reacting to the campaigning of the others. A pity. I'm glad to see Hart running ahead of the pack. If he gets the nomination, I'll surely vote for him and be glad I did. A race between Hart and Reagan would not be a choice between the lesser of two evils, and I for one am sick of voting for the lesser evil! One has to admit that Hart's front-running owes much to the media, who picked up on the "momentum" angle. It's odd now that "momentum" is a campaign "issue"! But there's also the fact that Hart is a good can- didate, even if not many know much about him! A lot's being said about how little is known about him. It's funny how nobody says anything about how little is known about Mondale or Glenn! Really now, what do most people know about Mondale except that he was Vice President? What do people know about Glenn except that he was an astronaut? (It's interesting now that Glenn is trying to im- press on people that he's *more* than an astronaut; at first it was his entire campaign!) The real reason that Mondale and Glenn were leading the polls so early on is that they were the only ones anyone heard of! And nei- ther of them have much public appeal beyond recognition. Truth be told, Mondale is a better candidate than most people make him out to be. He's acted honorably for quite some time, at times he showed fine moral character when Jimmy Carter was going astray. He's now coming off as a nasty grump trying to squash Hart. But Hart is a better choice. I've known about him before this race and I've been impressed. I'm *more* impressed with McGovern and Jackson, quite frankly, but Hart has a better chance for the Presidency. It's just luck that Hart's the front-runner. I'm not saying that only luck keeps *Mondale* from taking that spot; I'm saying that the American people want a change, and Hart now has the best chance of making that change. It was different before the NH primaries. A lot of people were half-heartedly resigned to Mondale winning and decided to throw their support his way in order to establish a unity to beat Reagan. What's more, there was a large number of candidates at the time, and at least three of them (Jackson, McGovern, and Hart) were good progressive can- didates. By luck (and some early-bird campaigning in Iowa, truth be told), Hart got the momentum. His surge in popularity is no mystery. He's a good choice, and he's got a good chance. <_Jym_> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 13-MAR-1984 09:56 NACHO::CONLIFFE People have never won elections by talking about REAL issues. (setq FLAME 1) I'm already getting sick of people who are calling HART the "next JFK". It's largely media hype, and seems mostly based on age and the fact that Hart is "coming from behind". Hart is capitalizing on this (can you blame him) and, frankly, I think that the whole mess is ridiculous. (setq FLAME 0) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 13-MAR-1984 12:14 PIXEL::DICKSON It is more than age. Hart's "new ideas" approach is lifted from JFK's campaign. And ALL the liberals have the hand motions down pat. Watch Mondale, McGovern, and Hart with the sound turned off. Chop, chop, chop. Mondale and McGovern even use the same voice inflections, as does Teddy K: a forced nasal whine. So who is the Libertarian Party running this year? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 16-MAR-1984 21:41 ELUDOM::WINALSKI This year's Democratic primary campaign has degenerated into a beauty contest. The news media have started hyping Hart as a come-from-behind underdog who is gaining momentum and overtaking the front runner. Does that make him a person that we want running the country? I don't hear anything on the news about "Gary Hart believes X is the way to lower the deficit" or "Mondale promises to do X to eliminate poverty." All I hear is about how Hart leads Mondale in a poll taken somewhere, or how Mondale didn't look good on camera in last night's debate. The real issue is for the Democrats to choose a person who will make a good president, or who at least can beat Reagan in the fall. Nobody seems to be interested in that this time around, though. --PSW -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 16-MAR-1984 23:04 VAXUUM::DYER Where's the beef? My beef with the media coverage of the campaign is this: They go to the polls and ask the voters who voted for Hart, "what do you know about Hart?" The ones who reply, "nothing, really," get put on the air. Are they asking Mondale supporters the same thing? What, really, do most people know about Mondale? I wish the media would stop this nonsense and *tell* people about these candidates so that they *will* know something about them. Isn't that what they're there for? (Rhetorical question...) <_Jym_> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 17-MAR-1984 13:18 ELUDOM::WINALSKI That's what you and I WANT them to be there for. What the news media are REALLY there for is to sell newspaper advertizing space or commercial time on their stations. That and personal gratification. The real substance of primary politics isn't exciting, so the news media create controversy where none would have existed. In this particular campaign, they have done so to the total exclusion of the real news they're supposed to be covering. --PSW -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 18-MAR-1984 22:10 BABEL::BISHOP_2 The Libertarian candidate is Dave Bergland, VP Jim Lewis. As far as I can tell, Hart is a supporter of "industrial policy", otherwise known as "central economic planning", otherwise called socialism. We've seen this in action, most recently in France. But candidates have a positive incentive not to reveal their views: any position will cause them to lose some votes. No positions will not lose votes. QED. -John Bishop -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- 18-MAR-1984 22:38 PYGMY::BOEBINGER Actually, you're dead wrong. Mondale is in favor of the "industrial policy". Hart is opposed. What Hart has proposed is quite different. He is in favor of a high-tech research exclusion to the antitrust laws, which would allow DEC, DG, CDC, etc, to combine efforts in joint ventures in basic research. The notion is that a blanket exclusion would allow for more productive combinations than the piecemeal approach taken now. In the industrial (smokestack) area, what he has proposed is that the government act as honest broker between labor and management in arriving at long term plans to phase in automation (which makes management happy) and retraining of workers (which makes the workers happy). He is calling for sacrifices on both sides: the workers must moderate pay demands and management must take the savings and use them for something productive (NOT for buying things like Marathon Oil). This position is similar to what the Japanese do. Mondale's industrial policy is the traditional 'pass laws to force folks to do this and that'. Hart wrote a book on his views. It's not his fault that the media can't read. john -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mon 19-Mar-1984 13:32 Zen (not EST!) Time