moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/06/84)
I haven't spent a lot of time keeping up with presidential campaign issues (I know for whom I'm voting!), but I am concerned about the adamant stand taken by NOW (and other feminist organizations, I assume) about having a woman on the Democratic ticket. Doesn't equality mean that the issue of gender should have no bearing on the decision? Maybe I'm just gutless, but I think that liberals have a lot to lose in this election: Reagan's re-election will virtually assure a *VERY* conservative Supreme Court; the effects will be felt for years to come. The best man for the job MAY be a woman, but then again.... Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
amg@pyuxn.UUCP (Alan M. Gross) (07/08/84)
<><>
The traditional reasons for choosing a VP are to add balance and votes
for the ticket. NOW believes a woman on the ticket can do this,
reasoning as follows.
The NOW organization has four major issues: the ERA, reproductive
freedom, eliminating racism, and lesbian and gay rights. Walter
Mondale supports all four of these issues and they are(!) currently
written into the proposed Democratic platform. Ronald Reagan has
actively worked against all four of these issues. Therefore NOW wants
Reagan out and Mondale in. NOW wants the Democratic ticket to be as
strong as possible to win.
Furthermore, in 1980, 6 million more women than men voted and it is
predicted that 8 million more women will vote this year. NOW wants to
mobilize this vote because of the "gender gap"--more women than men
support Mondale's (and NOW's) side of the issues. But many people see
little difference between Mondale and Reagan. "What difference does it
make who wins?" can often be heard. NOW feels (and polls show) that a
woman on the ticket could add between 9 and 13 percent to Mondale's
margin of victory in November.
So, as NOW President Judy Goldsmith said, "It's not that we won't play if
Mondale doesn't choose a woman, it's that we won't win."
I can also add as a voting delegate to the National NOW Conference in
Miami last weekend, that I saw about 15 Congresswomen, state
legislators, and women running for those positions address our
gathering, followed by Walter Mondale. Each of those women was more
dynamic than Mondale! Several of them are being considered for the VP
position on the ticket and could not help but add to its viability.
--
Alan M. Gross
{ariel,burl,clyde,floyd,
gamma,harpo,ihnp4,mhuxl}!pyuxn!amgtac@teldata.UUCP () (07/09/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
I heard a political columnist address the issue of a female on the
Mondale/Whoever ticket. His comment was that it would be so obviously
a ploy for votes (he made references to the qualifications of the
women being considered) that it would loose more votes in the long
run than it gained. I don't have the informational background to
support or refute that statement, but it seems to make sense to me.
As to Reagan's re-election insuring a conservative Supreme Court,
that seems awfully like what I heard about his election four years
ago.
From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who
matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not
my employers!rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (07/10/84)
Alan,
The arguments for a Female on the Democratic Ticket may have
some merit, that is, it may prove to be strategically correct.
However, tactically the NOW approach of "going public" is
questionable because it may put Mondale in a no win position
in his party. Headline "Mondale Wimps Out to Women's Lobby"
or some reasonable facsimile is what we might get from those
wonderrrfully, responsible, journalistic types. :-) But wait
since Mondale is a liberal it probably won't happen that way.
Anyway, do you think the NOW leadership weighed the plusses
and minusses (weird sp ?) of going public as opposed to tradit-
ional horse trading at the convention ?? I think not and I
question their priorities - #1 always seems to me to be
make a big noise for NOW, keep that name before the public.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
AT&T Technologies, Inc.............. Norcross, Ga
(404) 447-3784 ... Cornet 583-3784amg@pyuxn.UUCP (Alan M. Gross) (07/10/84)
> I heard a political columnist address the issue of a female on the > Mondale/Whoever ticket. His comment was that it would be so obviously > a ploy for votes (he made references to the qualifications of the > women being considered) that it would loose more votes in the long > run than it gained. I don't have the informational background to > support or refute that statement, but it seems to make sense to me. What else are VP candidates chosen for? Why would anyone choose someone like Spiro Agnew? Mondale is different from Reagan and he needs to do something dramatic to mobilize the people who care about the difference. Women do win elections, often against great odds. The myths that women candidates are not qualified or would lose votes are just that--myths. And don't forget that 8 million more women than men will vote in the next presidential election (6 million in 1980). The women's vote will determine the next president (whoever wins). Judy Goldsmith (President of NOW): "It's not that we won't play [if Mondale doesn't chose a woman for VP], it's that we won't win!" -- Alan M. Gross {ariel,burl,clyde,floyd, gamma,harpo,ihnp4,mhuxl}!pyuxn!amg
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (07/10/84)
According to one of the weekly news magazines, the Democratic party is very worried right now because it has been revealed that young, white, males, once a great source of support, are leaving the party folds in droves. Perhaps this is the major reason for wooing more of the female vote. It seems as if no matter what Fritz does in the Veep area, he will lose a chunk of voters. That possibility, along with the 14 point drop in the polls, has the democratic party doing some real head scratching to come up with some new ideas. Now that Jackson has told his followers to 'sit tight', and Hart won't give up the fight, this week's convention should be a real barn burner. I plan to watch as much as I can stand, just to see the floor fights. The Democratic convention is always a lot more exciting than the Republican convention. Those news hawks can make a mountain out of a molehill in two seconds flat. I just love it when they have to eat their words. T. C. Wheeler
carmine@qusavx.UUCP (Carmine Scavo) (07/13/84)
I think you all are missing the point -- Very infrequently is one given the opportunity to do BOTH what's right and what's politically expedient Mondale had that opportunity and he took it. Ferraro's nomination as Vice President sends a message to my teenage step-daughter that she too can grow up to be President of the US. That's something that we men have always assumed (although the probability of it happening is rather slim). It's also something which we all thought would happen someday, it was just a matter of when it would. Well, folks, SOMEDAY IS NOW!!! Really, doesn't it make you just a bit more excited about the election this year AND about the election process in this country? (By the way, Mondale's calculus was brilliant. He has completely dis- armed Hart and Jackson just before the Convention. Mondale can also turn around to other components of the DemocratIC Party coalition and say, "There's only one VP nomination and I had to make a choice. I chose a woman. There are, however, LOTS of cabinet posts. . .")
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (07/13/84)
(1) There were no headlines reading "Mondale Wimps Out", at least
not that I've seen. The conservative Sun-Times in Chicago headlined
"She Whiz!" (a la New York Post), and the equally conservative (but
somewhat more respectible) Tribune ran a front page analysis by the
national political correspondent that opened "So who's a wimp now?"
(2) Why do people think that "insider" politics
is superior to the much more democratic (with a small 'd') politics
practiced by NOW and other constituency groups within the Democratic
Party? All this special interest BS only applies to the Democrats
because the Republican special interests are in the background. What
is a $300 billion military budget but a huge payoff to Reagan's
defense industry supporters? What is the cuts in enforcement at the
NLRB, EPA, CPSC, FCC, etc. except pandering to Republican special
interests -- big business? At least the Democrats are open about
their contituencies.
Mike Kellylisa@mit-vax.UUCP (Lisa Chabot) (07/14/84)
. Having a woman vp candidate is an obvious ploy to gain votes? So, like, so was Kennedy having Johnson as vp. I always heard that's what running mates were chosen for. L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA USFail: DEC, MR03-1/K20, 2 Iron Way, Marlborough, MA 01752
andrew@inmet.UUCP (07/17/84)
#R:tektroni:-298500:inmet:7800102:000:766 inmet!andrew Jul 15 16:53:00 1984 > As to Reagan's re-election ENSURING a conservative Supreme Court, > that seems awfully like what I heard about his election four years > ago. He just hasn't had the opportunity yet... only one vacancy has occurred so far. Four Justices, though, are even older than RR himself, and are likely to resign in the next four years. As Governor of California, RR wholeheartedly endorsed a bill (proposed in the state legislature) that would have defined criticism of US policy in Vietnam as treason. That should give you some idea of Reagan's attitude toward the Bill of Rights, as well as an indication of what his Supreme Court nominees would be like (once he didn't have to worry about re-election). Andrew W. Rogers ...{harpo|ihnp4|ima|esquire}!inmet!andrew
waynez@houxh.UUCP (W.ZAKARAS) (07/19/84)
Funny I expected the headlines to read: ##### ###### #### ###### ## # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # ##### # ##### # # # # # ##### # # ### # ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # ###### #### ###### # # # # # ## # # ##### #### # # ##### ###### # # # ## # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #### # # # # ##### # ###### # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # ## # # # # # # # # # ###### # # # # ##### #### ###### # ##### ######
ciampa@wivax.UUCP (Robert Ciampa) (07/20/84)
>>Having a woman vp candidate is an obvious ploy to gain votes? So, like, >>so was Kennedy having Johnson as vp. I always heard that's what running >>mates were chosen for. >> >> L S Chabot The process used by Kennedy is called "balancing the ticket". It is a political method used to get votes from a different geographic region. The process used by Mondale is called "common sense". With his relative position in the polls, why not play host to the sex with the greater (today, anyways) voting power? -- Robert A. Ciampa {apollo, cadmus, decvax, linus, masscomp}!wivax!ciampa Wang Institute (617) 649-9731 x372
tac@teldata.UUCP (07/20/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice)
I agree with Lisa on *WHY* running mates are chosen, but I disagree on
why they *SHOULD* be chosen. They should be chosen as a person capable
of taking over if the president is incapable of continuing in office,
and as a person capable of acting as president of the Senate. Barring
the legal restrictions on the age of a candidate, would you have cheered
a nomination of Shirly Temple when she was 12?? It certainly would have
generated votes.
>From the Soapbox of
Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac}
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who
matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not
my employers!tac@teldata.UUCP (07/20/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) > > As to Reagan's re-election ENSURING a conservative Supreme Court, > > that seems awfully like what I heard about his election four years > > ago. > > He just hasn't had the opportunity yet... only one vacancy has occurred > so far. Four Justices, though, are even older than RR himself, and are > likely to resign in the next four years. Exactly the same logic used 4 years ago as to why RR should not have been elected in the first place. Now let me get this straight, we should NEVER elect a conservative because we might not have a totally liberal court! Right? Isn't that what you folks are saying? Well, well, well. Sounds like a good reason to vote for RR to me! > > As Governor of California, RR wholeheartedly endorsed a bill (proposed in > the state legislature) that would have defined criticism of US policy in > Vietnam as treason. That should give you some idea of Reagan's attitude > toward the Bill of Rights, as well as an indication of what his Supreme > Court nominees would be like (once he didn't have to worry about re-election). > I wont defend such a bill. Just let me ask this: How do you negotiate a peace settlement with opponents who know you want out at any cost? The answer (15 points and a gold star to any who guessed it) is called unconditional surrender. And yet, it is these same people who now tell us that we let our allies in SVN down when we left. >From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed herein are those of everyone who matters, but not necessarily anyone you know, and most certainly not my employers!
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/22/84)
[The great state of Confusion casts...uh, what was I saying?]
Tom Condon infers that opponents of Reagan who are concerned about his
possible Supreme Court appointments would prohibit all Conservatives
from holding the Presidency for the same reason. This is an
oversimplification.
The problem with potential Reagan appointments, as far as most of who
are worried are concerned, is that they will NOT be Conservative; they
will be statist. O'Connor clearly fits in with the Rehnquist-Burger
clique, which has started succesfully producing opinions that
substantially INCREASE government powers (introduction of illegally
obtained evidence, state display of religous symbols, prohibition of
foreign travel, etc.). While the Reagan Administration supposedly
seeks to "get government off our backs", its judicial appointments are
going to expand government intervention in daily conduct.
I, for one, would have no gripes with a Conservative president who
appoints Conservative judges (Conservatives who conserve). As an
example of this, I submit Ford's appointment of Stevens. This man is
no social engineer, but maintains the highest regard for individual
perogatives. Though I rarely support the national Republican party, he
is my personal favorite.
To get a Conservative Supreme Court, Reagan must be defeated, not
reelected!
From one who can accurately claim to be
a liberal (defender of individual rights)
and a conservative (benefit of the doubt
to the status quo),
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidmjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (07/23/84)
Response to Tom Condon on the Court: If you want a conservative court, that will not lean towards enhanced civil liberties, but away from that; that will tend to allow the wholesale abandoning of affirmative action and voting rights; and that will support Reagan in his quest to break trade unions, vote for Reagan. If you don't, that may well be what you get if Reagan's elected, so think about NOT voting for him. It's that simple. Just remember, though, that the Court lasts a lot longer than four years, and that either way, we will be very old people before the legacy of the Reagan court leaves us. And I say that as a 25-year-old. Response to Tom Condon on Vietnam: The way you avoid unconditional surrender is not to get into a war in the first place. The mistakes made at the end of the sixties and early seventies were only compounding the mistakes made in the fifties and early sixties. And these are only a result of the large mistake that has been U.S. foreign policy since World War II. If the U.S. is going to define its "national interest" as requiring intervention in every small nation in the world that dares to experiment with different economic systems, that mistake is going to continue. Just watch Nicaragua and El Salvador, a.k.a. "Vietnam II: Return of the Intervenors". Mike Kelly
simard@loral.UUCP (Ray Simard) (07/26/84)
[Do not write in this space] > All this special interest BS only applies to the Democrats > because the Republican special interests are in the background. What > is a $300 billion military budget but a huge payoff to Reagan's > defense industry supporters? What is the cuts in enforcement at the > NLRB, EPA, CPSC, FCC, etc. except pandering to Republican special > interests -- big business? At least the Democrats are open about > their contituencies. I suppose then that we should send our soldiers home, sell off military property and imagine that the rest of the world will do the same! I wish, but I'm not holding my breath. It is a mathematical fact that, so far, Reagan has not instituted any military spending not proposed during the Carter administration. The B-1, MX, Cruise missles, all were Carter proposals. Reagan has simply refused the policy of appeasement that characterized much of the 70's. True, contractors benefit from these programs (not to mention the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of rank-and-file workers). I would agree that there may be fat in the military budget. But suggesting that these budgets are largely created as favors for the defense industry is not factually supportable, just more liberal dreaming. As for regulatory 'enforcement cuts'; have you looked at the nature of regulation in the 60's and 70's? Among the useful policies is a morass of conflicting, paper-generating, inappropriate regulations, demanding incredible amounts of time complying, and documenting the compliance, driving many to evasion. Big Business doesn't bother me a tenth as much as Big Government. Business has to earn my patronage, government simply demands it. -- Ray Simard Loral Instrumentation, San Diego {ucbvax, ittvax!dcdwest}!sdcsvax!sdccsu3!loral!simard
david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/27/84)
Ray, you're mistaken about some of the Carter administration positions.
(1) The Carter adminstration scrapped the B-1; they rightfully felt that it
would be obsoleted by stealth technology in about five years, and
that ALCM's would serve admirably till then.
(2) The Carter administration did propose the MX, but would not
support it in its present form. Because the MX puts so many "eggs"
in one "basket" (each missile has 10 warheads), the "shell game"
was considered critical to its deterrence value. Instead, Reagan
is satisfied to base it in fixed position siloes, where its
vulnerability to a Soviet strike reduces it to a first-strike-only
weapon, and thus it becomes destabilizing, rather than deterring.
It was clear that Carter would have scrapped the MX once it became
apparent that political pressure would prevent the "shell game"
basing.
(3) The Carter administration did support the Trident, as you said.
David Rubin
{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!davidlmaher@uokvax.UUCP (08/03/84)
#R:qusavx:-19300:uokvax:5000102:000:1305 uokvax!lmaher Aug 2 18:50:00 1984 /***** uokvax:net.politics / ames!al / 1:06 pm Jul 31, 1984 */ In any case, the party might gut the military. The military is a serious threat to the party's rule. Stalin, you might remember, killed off more than half of the officers in the Red Army in the thirties, one of the reasons Hitler did so well in '41 and '42. /* ---------- */ I just thought I'd dispute this. The military is no threat to the party, because it is entirely dominated by the KGB. On the other hand, every Soviet leader has gained power with the approval of the military, but eventually cuts them back. If they're cut back too far, the backlash *can* hurt the premier, e.g. Khruschev. The enforced lack of initiative hampered the Red Army far more than the purges did. Soviet military doctrine does not allow room for imagination or initiative by junior officers. The Soviet military is certainly aware of the problem (it's *killing* them in Afghanistan), but it's simply too dangerous to train junior officers to think for themselves. During WW 2, Germans reported that Russian soldiers sometimes wouldn't even take advantage of cover unless they recieved orders to do so, and the most common message back to HQ was "What do we do now?" Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher
mwm@ea.UUCP (08/03/84)
#R:qusavx:-19300:ea:10100072:000:3126 ea!mwm Aug 2 22:47:00 1984 > The serious problem with Reagan is that he sees the world not as it is, but > rather through a very thick set of filters. Yes, but any photographer will tell you that filters are vital in making the picture come out right. Of course, if you drop the filters and see the world as it is, instead of as it should be, you get called a cynic. :-) > Better yet, give up this silly planetary empire shuck and jive. Hedgehog > around the U.S., i.e., control the Atlantic, Pacific, and incorporate > Latin America down to Panama in an economic and defense zone which will > require bringing those areas up to our standard of living and freedom > if the alliance is to be stable. A sound suggestion. There are just two problems. One, we are committed to helping provide for the defense of Europe. Backing out of such an agreement is *not* polite. Besides, the "not an inch shall be lost" defense the Germans insist on largely negates any numerical superiority the Europeans have - their reserves are committed before the battle starts. Finally, should we suddenly disappear, the now-empty Fulda gap leading to the Ruhr would be very tempting, especially if it looked like the USA wouldn't get involved. Japan, of course, is another problem. They don't have the population base, and have carefully steered *away* from arms production, or anything that looked like it, until just recently. As for incorporating Latin America (and I assume Canada, ut* take note!), that's also a good idea, *if you do it right*. No messing around with puppet dictatorships; make each country a state, and give the citizens of the new state all the rights, privileges and responsibilities of being a U.S. citizen. Just think - cheap foreign labor that isn't foriegn. We would of course then have a Spanish/English language problem comparable to (or worse than) the Canadian French/English language problem. > Meanwhile, develop resources in space to replace those gradually lost to > Russia in the worst scenario. This strategy will take decades to complete, > but even in the worst case gives us a very strong defensive position with > large resources available from orbit with Russia badly overextended trying > to hold Europe, China, and Africa down. More than likely Russia will take > centuries to get that far, if they don't collapse when the pressure we > apply quits holding them together. "Star Wars" carried to the ultimate. A policy I've advocated for about a decade now. Just think - a viable Lunar (or better yet, Martian) would make a *wonderful* base, both for offense ("We're going to throw WHAT at them, Mike?" "Rocks. We're going to throw rocks at them.") and defense. Of course, having all our (brand, new, highly efficient) heavy industry in space (where energy is free, velocity is expensive, and there's a *permanent* garbage dump handy so we don't pollute the atmosphere) makes it a bit vulnerable (throw rocks at it, of course), but no more so than the stuff on the ground, and the economic advantages are marvelous. "We're going to come out and conquer the world! What could be more American than that?" <mike
gds@homxa.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (08/23/84)
I was reading a newspaper article for a local newspaper (Long Branch, NJ I
think) in which some women were asked if they felt a woman should be
elected president or vice president. A majority of them said no. I was
quite surpised! Evidently, none of these women thought that a woman was
sufficiently qualified or experienced enough to be president or vice pres-
ident.
If 8 million (??) women are going to vote in this election and a majority of
them hold the same opinions that these few women have, Mondale/Ferraro
doesn't look like it has too good a chance.
--
Hug me till you drug me, honey!
Greg Skinner (gregbo)
{allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!hou2e!gregbo