Re: Who content approaching zero rapidly

>1) It's a huge leap to think he'll be unable to do his job.  I
>wouldn't vote for him myself, for all the reasons you listed in your
>post.  I think the guys a nut, and $$$ aren't a qualification in my
>book.  Still, I don't assume he wouldn't do anything.

Brad:

I seriously believe that, given the feelings the parties would have if he
were elected (fear and anger), he won't be able to do squat...and the two
parties will make sure of that! Just to disprove a three party system as a
viable solution. It may be the ONLY time they see eye to eye...
And I believe they'll do what they can to discredit him and get rid of him.

>2) Hey, who else has done more?  Hasn't gridlock been one of the
>biggest problems for quite a while now?  I'm surprised you and Ian
>haven't argued whether Reaganomics was due to Reagan, or Reagan's
>inability to get Congress to do his bidding.  No recent president has 
>been able to pass butkiss of importance after the first year or 
>two of his presidency.

Since Reagan's own hand-picked Sec. of Treasury (David Stockman) stated that
it wouldn't work and was in fact dangerous for the country (and was ignored
and fired for saying it)...before it was even in front of Congress...I'd
blame Reagan and his advisers.

>3) Impeachment is a pretty damn serious thing.  I find it astonishing
>how often the word is thrown around, which is why I'm getting involved
>in this whole fracas.  By your criteria, there's a large percentage of
>the country that would impeach Clinton, would have impeached Bush,
>etc.  It makes a sham of democracy to cry impeachment early and often
>for no substantial reason.

I've certainly seen bumperstickers that say: Impeach Clinton.

>4) Getting into a major conflict with another country might be the
>only thing giving him a chance at re-election, ha!

That backfired on Bush.

>As long as I'm slinging my ever-so-humble opinions around, Ian, the
>Clintons haven't been charged with anything.  Whitewater's the
>biggest joke.  

Yes, that's completely true. D'Amato wants to build a career (can anyone
here say Vice Prez?) on this, but he just can't come up with anything. He
got so excited over Hillery's fingerprints (which still wouldn't mean dick
about Bill) that I thought he would have a heart attack. And I'll say this
very clearly: even if Hillery is guilty as Hell (and there's no evidence
that she is), it still wouldn't have anything to do with Bill Clinton...we
didn't elect HER as Prez, and as busy as they both were during that period
(and even now) there is bound to be LOTS of stuff they don't know about what
the other was doing.
While we're on the subject, the character issue is one that always gives me
a laugh. I don't think that any of Clinton's supposed faults have anything
to do with his running the country...which clearly he IS doing. One big
thing about Dole we must be careful of is his inflexible WWII attitude. This
is the 90s, and we don't need some shrivelled up attitudes that are
backdated as Hell! Every time I hear him speak about "family values" I
cringe. His idea on that is forcing Xtianity on us all. It has no bearing on
the reality of the situation. If both people in a family didn't have to work
just to survive, there would be more family life. The very thing his party
created (see WWII and after) is what is dragging the citizens of this
country down.



                   Cheers                   ML

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  L. Long