Diane Evans wrote:
> ....Bush is no knight in shining armor, but
> his ability to "'fess up" is refreshing.
He didn't choose to fess up. There was paper evidence. And before someone tells
me again all about Clinton, yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, and so what? Clinton is
not on the ballot.
> Also, doesn't anyone remember Gore's part in censorship? I know Tipper was
> the one voicing the opinion, but he never contradicted her, did he?
Are you talking about Tipper in the 80s trying to get rating labels on records?
Or the recent remarks about Hollywood? We all get our buttons pushed by
different issues, but this seems like a rather mild concern to me considering
the other things on the line with this election.
> Gore's ability to play an audience makes me uneasy. Bush's good ole boy camp
> gives
> me the shivers. What's a girl to do?
Good luck with your decision.
Neither is perfect (is anyone?), but Gore seems solid and Bush plus all the
Republicans in Congress scares me. If he's elected, bye-bye to the economy
that's been good for most of us. And social issues? Backwards, we'd be going
backwards with Bush in charge.
> And since the usual isn't working, why can't we, as a nation, vote on
> whether to accept a third party? How do we get this going?
Don't have an answer for you on that one. Now third parties seem merely
destructive, as in every vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. I'd hate to see
Gore lose because of the idealistic Nader voters.
> One other thing that bothers me, since I'm getting this off my chest: some
> of us DO find Clinton's inability to keep promises made before God an
> offense. His infidelity is inexcuseable, IMHO.
You've held onto that one for quite a while. I don't understand why you're
connecting that to this election since Clinton is not on the ballot.
Debra Shea,
trying to have a que sera sera attitude, but it's not happening
NP: RT, How will I ever be simple again
