Character? The issues? Just one issue?

Do you care about the candidate's character, i.e., infidelity, drug or alcohol problems (past or present), conflicts of interest? Are you a one issue voter? What's the issue? If that one issue were erased from the picture, would your voting patterns be different?

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Answers

C haracter matters.

I look for candidates who understand that the government's power should not be unlimited, and who show respect for the good sense of the voters. I want elected officals who don't think they have first dibs on the income (not to mention lives) of every taxpayer.

On a slightly related note, Beth is exactly correct that G.W. Bush will follow the precedent set by Presidents Bush and Reagan by not appointing hard core anti-abortion federal judges. The reason is simple. A core value shared by most Republicans is that the courts are not for legislation. Since the constitution is silent on abortion, it becomes an issue for the individual states. There is no danger that a Republican judge will attempt to outlaw abortions from the bench.

A Republican judge may personally oppose abortion, but unlike a liberal judge, he or she is highly unlikely to map their personal beliefs into a finding that the constitution contains invisible "perambulas" that empower them to legislate policy from the bench.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I vote based on a lot of issues (what their platform wants to fund, which programs are going to get play, stuff like that) but my two make-them or break-them issues are gay rights and abortion rights.

And the only way I can find those out are to look at their previous voting histories, rather than what they're saying their position is now. I don't care particularly what they do in their personal life, as long as they don't lie about it.

Not that I want a drug abuser or alcoholic as the president, but as long as what they're doing doesn't interfere with their ability to make policy, I don't really care.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Say what you want about Ted Kennedy, Beth, but I'll never forget what my mom says -- "I will always vote for Ted Kennedy because of his defense of Medicaid." If it wasn't for his work on health care issues, who knows what would have happened to three of my grandparents who required long-term nursing care at the end of their lives. As it was, my relatives died with nothing because all of their assets were spent on nursing care before they had to go on Medicaid, who then picked up the bill. Because of Medicaid, they were able (fortunately) to spend their final days in a comfortable facility where they were well-cared for.

And yes, I grew up in Massachusetts, hub of The Kennedy Kingdom, and no, I don't agree with all the Kennedys all the time. But I don't give a rat's ass about any politician's personal life as long as he or she is representing the constituency consistent with its wishes and not abusing public funds.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I'm not talking about his personal life. I'm talking about the fact that he used his power -- political and personal -- to strong arm a network into changing its programming. Unacceptable, and I don't care how many times he saves Medicaid. We live in a democracy with a free press, not a monarchy headed by the Kennedys.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I am a one issue voter. The one issue; the one question I ask myself is this: "Do I want *this* person to be President (Senator, Congressman, Mayor, Governor, Registrar of Deeds); based on all I know about his policies, qualifications, goals, plans, and character?"

To tie this question in with the third party question; voting isn't a zero sum game - a vote for a canadite isn't a vote against anybody else; a vote for one person doesn't 'take away' a vote from one other specific canadate. Remember - just because you are in a voting booth; doesn't mean you have to pull a lever in a particular ballot section.

I will routinely abstain in particular elections that I have no knowledge of; or interest in. I have only missed to elections, but I have never cast a vote in a University Board of Regents election. I just don't know the issues or people; and who gets to run the big state schools really won't affect me.

Anyway; back to character. Character counts, for me, only as far as I can trust that a canadate will actually do what they say they will do. For instance, I judge W's character higher than Gore's.

This excludes, of course, what I think of what W and Gore would do if elected; but I believe, based on what I know of their character, that W would do what he says. I don't trust Gore to do what he says....

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Great question. And a hard one to answer succintly.

In short, I guess I most value personal freedom and the right to self- determine, as long as such decisions do not adversely affect the rights of others. I also prefer a more limited central government, and a more active regional government structure so that control of the politics that affect us the most is less distant from us individually. Lastly, I do value character a lot, but only as it affects my ability to trust them to do what they think is right.

Our elected officials should always put what they think is the best interest of their constituents or the country first. If I think they will serve their self-interest first, I cannot vote for them. How could I trust them? They might sell me out.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I value personal freedom and the right too self determine also, and that's why I would never vote for Bush or probably any Republican as long as they favor legislating what any woman can do with her own body. Or what any two people can do in their own bedrooms for that matter.

I sure would never take any chance that Bush just might not appoint some right wing pro-lifer to the Supreme court. At least with the Democrats I know that my chances are better for preventing that.

It's not a one issue election, but this issue is important to me, and to many women. Maybe that's because I am old enough to know what it was like before abortion was legal in this country. I know women who had to seek back alley doctors like chiropractors and osteopaths who were performing them illegaly and sometimes unsafely. I know women who had them and it wasn't pretty. And though I do not know anyone who died from one, I know many who did know women who died.

I can hardly wait for the RU486 pill to be legal here, because it could hlep to reduce some of the inflammatory behavior. But you know that the anti abortionists are also trying to force legislation against that. These people do want to invade your privacy. And don't forget that just because there is a pill, it's not going to enitirely prevent the need for medical procedures to terminate unwanted pregnancies. And legal or not, women will continue to seek out abortions.

Pro Choice vs Pro Life is just not a small issue to be ignored or dismissed. It's a big one. Why are we always diminishng it's importance?

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

And I too very much admire Ted Kennedy for his work on health care issues in this country. We wouldn't even be this close to solving any of the issues, were it not for him. And I'm not from Massachusetts.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Regarding the Supreme Court: If conservatives are so averse to litmus tests for judicial nominees, how do you explain the appointment of Clarence Thomas? Here is a summary of his legal experience from the book Strange Justice:

"Thomas had been on the bench for less than two years. It had been more than a decade since he had practiced law, and then only briefly at entry-level jobs...Thomas had never litigated a case before a jury. Nor, during his brief stint as a judge, had he issued a single substantive constitutional opinion."

As far as I can tell, Thomas's only qualifications were being black and ultra-conservative--a political stance he has maintained in his time on the court. It frightens me to think that Bush fils would make a similar sort of appointment. And as for RU-486, I'll go out on a limb here and say that I think it's going to be a long time until we see it widely available here. Even if it's legalized, I think pharmaceutical companies are going to stay far away from such a controversial product for fear of boycott.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Well, I think it's debatable that we have a free press in this country, but that's another story.

There are other events in recent memory that are similar to Kennedy pressuring a TV network. I'm not saying it's right, but Ted Kennedy SURE AS HELL ain't the first. Who, with a public image to protect, is pure?

Some examples off the top of my head: 1. the release of the U.S. hostages in Iran just as Reagan takes office. 2. recent government pressure on TV shows to deliver an anti-drug messages: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan- june00/whouse_1-17.html 3. illegal leaks and possible untruthful statements by an ex-Kenneth Starr aide during the Clinton investigation - http://whbf.cbsnow.com/now/story/0,1597,212849-268,00.shtml

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I don't give a rat's ass about "character," because I feel that being a politican REQUIRES them to be corrupt in order to be elected. I just want whichever crook is for the same things as me politically.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Jennifer, Thomas is highly qualified for high office, he has far more real experience than "Hillary!", having actually held a real job.

For those who would like to know actual facts, rather than quotes from a liberal screed like the discredited book Strange Justice, here is a summary Justice Thomas's biography:

Birth, Residence, and Family

Born June 28, 1948 in the Pinpoint community, near Savannah, Georgia. Married Virginia Lamp, May 30, 1987. Child: Jamal Adeen.
Education

Conception Seminary, 1967-1968: Holy Cross College, A.B. cum laude. Alpha Sigma Nu, Purple Key. Yale Law School, J.D., 1974.
Law Practice
Admitted to Missouri Bar 1974. Attorney, Monsanto Company, 1977- 1979.
Government Service

Assistant Attorney General of Missouri, 1974-1977;
Legislative assistant to Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri, 1979-1981;
Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, 1981-1982;
Chairman U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Com mission 1982-1990.
Judicial Offices

Nominated by President Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: took oath of office, March 12, 1990.
Nominated by President Bush as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court: took oath of office October 23, 1991.

There is no better example of the dishonesty and hypocrisy that resides at the core of the Democrat party than their shameful, unfounded, and rasist attacks on Thomas, contrasted their worship of a man with a long and disgraceful history as an abuser of women, most of whom were workplace subordina.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Why does it always have to be one or the other? Democrats excuse Clinton and villify the right wing; Republicans call Clinton names and defend their own candidates (or judicial appointees) to the ends of the earth. I understand why party leaders or candidates themselves would do that sort of thing, but why do the rest of us buy into it? Can't Clinton and Thomas both be dispicable pigs? Why do we have to choose whether we believe Anita Hill or Paula ... oh, hell, what was her name? No, don't tell me; I'm glad I forgot it. Personally I believe both of them, but I'm open to the possibility that either might have been lying.

I don't think much of Clarence Thomas as a justice. I think Scalia is a much better justice, even though I don't much care for his politics. I can't stand Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a justice even though she's closer to me politically. I think most of the justices seem like fairly decent people, at least compared to your average politician -- which probably has something to do with the fact that they don't have to campaign for office.

I don't like single issue voting as it affects Supreme Court appointments. I don't think I'm diminishing the importance of abortion rights when I say that there are more important issues that come before the Supreme Court. I disagree with Jo's assertion that we "always diminish the importance" of this issue. To the contrary, I think we've allowed this issue to divide us long enough. It is in the Democrats' interest to keep abortion rights in jeopardy, you know, because if this issue ever goes away, a whole lot of voters will opt for the fiscal conservatism of the Republican party. Abortion is not the only issue facing this country. It is certainly not the only issue facing the court.

If a candidate could promise me that he'd find judges who were smart, moderate in their interpretation of the constitution (no strict constructionists or social activists -- the former belong in museums and the latter belong in the legislature), concerned about human rights, interested in returning some semblance of sanity to our criminal justice system and particularly the Fourth Amendment, familiar with the concept of free speech, and willing to tell Congress that habeas corpus is not a creature of statute and they can just keep their goddamn dirty politician hands off of it, then hey, I'd vote for that candidate in a heartbeat. Al Gore has made me no such promise, and I wouldn't believe him if he did.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

The two main issues that I'm concerned with in a candidate are his stance on abortion rights and glbt rights. I will not automatically support someone just because he/she supports these two things, but I *will* refuse to vote for anyone who does not support them. Other issues very important to me are education and freedom of speech/press, but they're a step down on the hierarchy.

Candidate's character, well, frankly I have pretty serious doubts about the character of almost every politician around. But it's mostly not anything that will make or break my support for a candidate.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

It comes down to this: none of the candidates is particularly likeable as far as I'm concerned, and the issue of character is laughable - they're politicians for godsake.

So what does matter on election day? The truly frightening thing is that I'm not sure that I believe that any of us has the power to control the political machine. For every well-informed voter there are probably 10 apathetic citizens who won't take the time to make a thoughtful decision - if they bother to vote at all. Come election day the candidate who has most successfully managed his sound bites will be the winner, and we will all just have to wait and see how it plays out.

As for the issues? I will never endorse a candidate who opposes my right to choose. Never. I could probably go either way on alot of the other issues, but abortion is a deal breaker.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Beth I agree with you about 95%, however let me address the question "Can't Clinton and Thomas both be despicable pigs?".

Of course they could be, they just aren't. In fact Thomas is an honest, honorable man. You may not like his politics, but attacks on his character are totally unwarrented. There are no women other than Anita Hill who have ever had a problem with Thomas, whereas Paula Jones was just one of many women abused by Clinton. Hill continued to follow Thomas professionally for years after the alleged "harassment" theoretically occurred.

Even if you believe her unsupported story, all Hill really accused Thomas of was telling an off color joke in the office. This was hardly in the same league with the real abuse Clinton deals out to women. The Clinton pattern of identifying low ranking, subordinate women and pressuring them for sex is well documented by many unrelated witnesses.

Hill certainly had the same option to sue as did Jones. Had Hill chosen to sue, she could have assembled an army of high profile lawyers. It's not like she didn't understand the law, she was a lawyer for the EEOC at the time, for heavens sake!

It's very telling that Hill didn't sue. Jones withstood years of slander, attack, and ridicule to persue her lawsuit. Eventually she settled for $800,000. A federal judge (a Clinton appointee) found that Clinton had committed perjury. Possible disbarment and jail time are still real possibilities for him.

Disagree all you want with Thomas's politics, but Clinton is not fit to clean the toilets in the Thomas household.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Jim, are you calling the facts I quoted into question? The information you provide does not contradict anything I wrote, nor does it show Thomas to be an especially distinguished jurist--his qualifications are certainly not on the level of the other justices.

In addition, I am totally baffled by your Hillary Clinton reference. Nobody has suggested that she be appointed to the Supreme Court.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Jennifer W., that patronizing remark about "entry level" is total BS. Thomas had 16 years of experience in the public and private sector. If a Republican said something of that sort about a black Clinton appointee you liberals would be shouting "RACIST" at the top your lungs, and you know it. You patronize Thomas because he dared to step off of the liberal plantation, not because of his qualifications. And while we are at it, what makes Thomas an "ultra" conservative?

"Hillary!" isn't running for Supreme Court at the moment, but she is running for Senator, which isn't exactly an entry level job. Yet the only job "Hillary!" has ever held is that of rainmaker in the Rose Law firm.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Thomas was employed in the private and public sector for 16 years, but he did not practice law for most of that time. His only real litigation experience was in his first job out of law school as assistant attorney general of Missouri. Isn't your first job out of school, by definition, an entry level job?

His job at Monsanto involved registering of herbicides with the EPA and monitoring the company's product liability cases--the cases themselves were farmed out to outside lawyers. His jobs as aide to Senator Danforth, and at the DOE and EEOC were, likewise, distinguished jobs, but they did not involve the practice of law.

Is Clarence Thomas an intelligent and accomplished man? Indubitably. But did his background qualify him to be a Supreme Court nominee? No way.

Your accusations of racism would be insulting were they not so laughable. You don't know me, and you certainly don't know my motivations. In the future, I suggest you try to prove your points on the basis of facts, and not by stooping to spiteful name-calling.

Finally, as I'm sure you know, Hillary Clinton was a partner at Rose Law, which most people would probably consider to be a fairly distinguished job. But even if it weren't, since when is a distinguished legal career a prerequisite for political office? If this is the case, you'd better tell that governor of yours! He couldn't even get in to law school.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Jeffinfer, Gore flunked out of law school. Bush aced the Harvard MBA program.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

With all due respect, Jim, you should try listening to a little less Rush Limbaugh.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Al Gore left law school, but I've never heard any evidence that he flunked out. Even the Free Republic, in this critical article about Gore's educational background doesn't make such an assertion. Where are you getting your information?

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

"Jeffinfer." I think you should make that your new secret identity, Jen. Best typo I've seen all day.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Character matters. I look for candidates . . . who show respect for the good sense of the voters.

Say, Jim, now that we know where you stand on the issue of character, did you decide to vote for Bush before, during, or after he spoke at Bob Jones University?

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

Did you watch every minute of the Clarence Thomas hearings as I did, Jim? I mean every single minute. Did you stay up late into the night on the last night when they had a panel of other women who were also testifying to other alleged incidents of sexual harrassment? I did. (Did you see Sen. Spector making a jerk of himself trying to gloss over the truth?) It was very important to me to be able to see every minute so that I could make up my own mind. I believed Anita Hill, and I always will.

I also believe OJ killed Nicole....

I really feel that it is extremely important to believe in the character of a Supreme Court Justice. I listen to all of the hearings every time an appointment is made. I don't see what the problem is with Ruth Bader Ginsberg, although she may be distracted by her own health issues. And sometimes I am surprised to find that Scalia issues opinions which I actually think are sensible, too. Thomas has never issued an opinion...or maybe he did only once, and he always votes with Scalia...seems like he doesn't have much of an opinion himself.

And conservative justices have been known to change over time...take Earl Warren...appointed by Eisenhower.

I do think there are a lot of issues which need to be considered which are just as important as abortion rights. Unfortunately, we cannot make the controversy go away just by wishing it were not so important. It's the Republican party that is trying to scam everyone and diminish the issue of abortion rights to make us believe that it is a non issue, simply because it really is a huge issue.

Beth, you said that judicial appointments might depend on political favors owed. To whom do you think Bush will owe the most political favors? I think it's the right wing ultraconservatives. What's keeping them so quiet? It's not just the selection of Cheney. How do you think that a Bush win would possibly be of any advantage on issues other than abortion, Beth?

Like Sarah, I will never be swayed away from supporting our right to choose, as long as there are those who want to try to legislate to deny women that right.

-- Anonymous, August 15, 2000

I don't see what the problem is with Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

I hate slogging through her opinions. They're worse than Thomas's, which are bad enough. I think that these two justices tend to reach a conclusion and then interpret the law in a way that leads them to the desired result, which makes it difficult to follow their logic at times.

Thomas has written many opinions. He does not always follow Scalia. And I certainly never said I saw any advantages in a Bush victory. I just don't see many in a Gore victory, either, and I'm not willing to use my vote on someone whom I despise. Your mileage may vary.

It's the Republican party that is trying to scam everyone and diminish the issue of abortion rights to make us believe that it is a non issue, simply because it really is a huge issue.

I absolutely agree with this. I think the Republicans have a lot to gain if the issue of abortion goes away. The Democrats, on the other hand, have every interest in convincing us that abortion is the single most important issue facing our nation, because it's the only area where they differ significantly from the Republicans these days. If the abortion controversy were to magically go away -- if, say, a pharmaceutical company with some guts were to actually develop and market RU-486, which wouldn't erase the abortion issue but would certainly reduce tensions -- a whole lot of folks who presently vote Democrat would opt for the fiscal conservatism of the Republican party.

If no one is talking about RU-486 anymore, if a few right wing radicals were able to scare drug companies out of developing and marketing it, ask yourself why. Ask yourself why this isn't the number one issue being promoted by women's groups, why the Democrats aren't jumping up and down screaming about it, why no one is talking about it anymore. Answer? Easy. If RU-486 got widespread use in this country, the Democrats would lose their big scary issue that they use to keep us in line.

Listen. I agree abortion is an important issue, and if it's so important to you that you're willing to overlook every other issue where the Democrats aren't so hot, then absolutely you should vote for Gore. (Although, as I said, don't be surprised if one of his liberal judges turns out to have funny ideas about abortion rights. It's happened before.) Likewise, if you're a slightly-left-of-center Democrat like Jennifer (I apologize if I'm misinterpreting your views, Jen, but that would be my guess after reading your journal and your forum postings for a couple of years), Gore/Lieberman is probably a pretty good ticket for you.

It's not the ticket for me. I think we need major changes to our political system, to our justice system, to education and health care and environmental protection. I have no faith that any of that will happen if we keep electing people who won't deliver those changes. If I vote Democrat, I'm voting for a platform in which I do not believe. I'm voting for a man whom I despise. Abortion rights are important, but I believe there is more at stake, and I am not throwing my vote away.

Again: your mileage may vary.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Al Gore left law school, but I've never heard any evidence that he flunked out. Even the Free Republic, in this critical article about Gore's educational background doesn't make such an assertion. Where are you getting your information?

I couldn't find any information as to why he left law school, but I'd be willing to bet he did flunk out. I can't imagine why anyone would stick it out for two years and then leave before third year -- the first two years of law school are fairly brutal, but third year is a breeze. Every law student knows that.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

According to this Washington Post Article, Gore left law school to run for office and made "satisfactory" grades (the author apparently had access to his transcript).

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Wow. A 69 in Civ Pro? That's not so great.

My SAT scores were higher than Al Gore's. I'm so proud.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

OK, I'm not a lawyer, and I have to rely on the media to report Supreme Court rulings, and I certainly can't claim to have heard every single one of them, though I do pay a lot of attention to those things. I also have not had the pleasure, or the pain, of reading every one of the opinions of all of the justices in detail either. And I am not going to start. I'll try not to make too many unsupported, uninformed statements in the future. But I can't promise. I should have known not to say "always" when discussing something with a lawyer. Nevertheless, I don't want my Supreme court any more conservative than it is, thanks. I prefer more liberal, lots more liberal.

As for my politics, I have no problem saying that I am probably pretty far to the left of center, but far less so than in my youth, so the Democrats suit me just fine. I have voted for Republicans, but only in State elections. Until Clinton, I never voted for a winning candidate, either.

Not having read every topic in this forum from top to bottom, I must have missed why it is you loathe Gore so much. Point me there and I will go read it. But your speculation that he flunked out of law school is really just speculation isn't it? Might be true, I surely don't know either, but can't be taken as fact any more than my statement about Thomas's opinions, I guess.

Health care is a HUGE issue for me. As a self employed person for over 20 years, insurance has been a major concern for me and at one time for my employees. There was and is nothing really affordable. I am paying a huge amount of money for our coverage. We have pre-existing conditions which mean that changing policies is not possible. I have a mother-in-law who recently had a stroke. She has little money and must be cared for in a in a nursing home for the rest of her life. Once her money is gone, she will have to depend on public aid. Nursing homes are grossly understaffed because the pay is so low. Minimum wage is an issue. This leads to shitty care at some level even if the home is reasonably good. Prior to this she had huge drug bills which were not covered. This is all an issue. I have two grand-daughters who were not covered under any health care policy for a very long time because their father was in the restaurant industry (not just a waiter, no). I worried so much about what might happen if something serious occurred when they had no insurance. That is and was an issue. All of those things concern me, so regardless of whether or not abortion is a big issue, these other issues do mean that I will indeed vote for Gore. I am concerned for the himan beings who are important to me.

A change in fiscal policy? The economy is thriving, and people have made lots of money. Do you want capital gains taxes cut? Or inheritance taxes cut? Do you want more benefits for the already wealthy? What fiscal policy changes do you desire? With the Democrats looking more and more like Republicans every day, I'd think taking your chances on getting some of these things to happen with a Democrat in office would be more realistic than wishing for your preferred appointments of Supreme Court judges.

In the end we vote for only one reason, and that is for the candidate who best meets our own simple personal needs. So why do we even bother to discuss it or argue the issues. Unless I inherit a lot of dough, which could happen, I am sure not likely to change my mind. Are you?

As for RU 486...no guts, no glory...let's hope something is done along the lines of making it legal here and easily accessible. I think the best chance of that lies with the Dems, who have made some promises, though failed to follow through enough on those efforts. I think it's fear of reprisal by the right, though, not fear of loosing an issue. And I am all for anything that keeps a woman's right to choose in place and levels the political playing field. You certainly cannot throw that off on the Democrats though, nosiree. (Hey, how come Viagra got run through so quick?)

As for Bush, he has that "smarmy-bad-boy-I'm-gonna-smile-and-scheme-and-seduce-you-and-in-the-end-I'm- gonna-break-your-heart-look" that women love to fall for but end up hating themselves for in the moring...and Clinton was no exception there either... I think those sorts of candidates do tend to disappoint in the end.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jo, I'm not sure where you got the idea that I had anything in common with the Republicans, or that my dislike of Gore had a thing to do with capital gains taxes, etc. On the contrary, I think Gore is barely distinguishable from the Republicans. To steal a phrase that my boyfriend used earlier this evening, the Democrats are swimming towards the middle, which means they are swimming further and further away from me. I thought Clinton was practically a Republican back in 1992, and Gore is far more conservative than he was.

You seem to be assuming that my dislike of Gore has something to do with an approval of Bush. It doesn't. I consider myself to about 100 steps to the left of Gore. I'm disgusted by his stance on the death penalty, by the entire Democratic party's abandonment of criminal justice issues in general, by their sacrifice of the First Amendment on the alter of family values, by his hypocrisy on environmental issues, by his inability to understand that promising to consider issues in exchange for political donations is considered bribery by anyone with a brain. I don't like his wife, I don't like his very conservative running mate, and I'm not going to vote for him. Okay?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Is there some requirement that a politician be a lawyer? Maybe it's better that he realized it wasn't for him. How many people have made changes in their careers in mid-stream, because they found themselves stuck with unhappy choices? Good grades in two years of law school are not the only criteria for judging a person's qualifications. Lame argument.

I think years of political experience count for a lot, actually. A lot more than 4 years as a pretty lousy governer. What are G.Dubbya's qualifications?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jo: I'm not voting for Bush. My decision not to vote for Gore has nothing to do with him flunking out of law school, or not flunking out of law school, or having bad grades or smoking pot or any of that. Okay? Are we clear on that? I'm not a Republican. I'm not voting for Bush. I've been a Green Party member for a number of years because I think the Democrats are too conservative. Okay?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Ahhh...I misread this: if, say, a pharmaceutical company with some guts were to actually develop and market RU-486,which wouldn't erase the abortion issue but would certainly reduce tensions -- a whole lot of folks who presently vote Democrat would opt for the fiscal conservatism of the Republican party.

And I did not go back and re-read, so I somehow got it fixed in my head that you were approving of the fiscal policy of the Republicans...

Sorry, it's late and I'm hyped cause I spent the evening with extremely conservative relatives, and it drives me bonkers, and gets me in a lather...

I am also opposed to capital punishment and I do believe that the justice system needs a major overhaul. And so on...and all things considered, the only hope I see for getting anything that remotely resembles what's important to me is to vote for Gore.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Nothing matters to me on election day. I'm utterly cynical about the entire process and know that the statements uttered by the parties in the run-up to elections are made purely for the purpose of winning voters. I have ceased to expect that if a party achieves power it will then honour any of those promises. I vote for whoever I think will do the least damage over the next three years because I don't trust them to do good.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

jo- "A change in fiscal policy? The economy is thriving, and people have made lots of money. Do you want capital gains taxes cut? Or inheritance taxes cut? Do you want more benefits for the already wealthy?"

You call tax cuts a benefit???? That is offensive! The top 1% of the population pay 20% of the income taxes. The top 5% pay 50% of the taxes. The top 50% in income pay 95% of the taxes. We have a projected surplus before us. This surplus means that the government is collecting too much in taxes (and NOT your view that it is just not spending enough.) So, shouldn't the projected amounts that are not being earmarked to be spent just not be collected in the first place? (unless maybe if the alternative is the pay down the debt)

And if we cut taxes, shouldn't the tax cuts go to those who are already being fleeced and being made to pay a disproportionate share? Tax cuts clearly should go to those paying taxes.

I am disgusted by this prevalent perspective amongst liberals that my money is not mine, its their's/the goveernments to be spent as you see fit. Bullshit. That money is mine. I worked for it. I sacrificed for it. I want it to support my family. And I'll be damned if I just keep letting you take it without a fight! You people are getitng me revved up again. Thanks. I think I've been apathetic too long on this.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jarvis, you fail to mention that the top 1% wealthiest Americans account for 40% of the nation's wealth, and the top 20% own 80%. Duh, obviously they pay most of the taxes! They have most of the money!

I think they're making out pretty well, tax-wise. I pay more than a third of my income in taxes and my total earnings were under $30K last year (I'm a full-time student--oh, and did I mention that my fellowship money is fully taxable? I have Mr. Reagan to thank for that). The concept of a "surplus" is kind of laughable when you consider our vast national debt, our troubled public schools, our crime-ridden streets and our lack of a national healthcare system. Tax cuts for the wealthy would be short-sighted and irresponsible.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Yeah, I call tax cuts a benefit, and I'd like to see people who really need help benefit, not selfish, self-serving, self-indulgent little yuppies who think not having two SUV's is an unnecessary hardship.

People who benefit from any surplus first should be those who need it, and then after that, when those who do really need help get some, and if we continue to do well, you can have a tax cut.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

"People who benefit from any surplus first should be those who need it, and then after that, when those who do really need help get some, and if we continue to do well, you can have a tax cut."

I guess that the about sums up the difference between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of taxes. Jo seems to feel that every penny everyone earns belongs to the government, and that these earnings should be distributed by the government to individuals based on her determination of "need".

Republicans are in favor of helping people who need help, but they recognize that people are entitled to the fruit of their labors, and as G.W. said recently a third of one's income is enough for taxes.

Ironically, Jo's attitude would actually hurt the people she wants to help the most, because lower taxes mean more money for government programs! A huge fraction of the money the government takes is just pissed away with no return on investment to anyone. When people keep their money they spend it much more wisely and generate more wealth-creating economic activity. This makes a bigger pie and generates more jobs and hence more tax revenue, not less.

I don't even think Democrat insiders make the argument that cutting taxes cuts overall revenue anymore, since we have so much data to show that the contrary is true. They usually appeal to class envy.

But even if raising taxes really did increase government income, high taxes are still wrong on moral grounds.

Fortunately they don't. Low prices(taxes) generate high volume economic activity. This is the way to high revenues. Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and McDonalds all understand this simple economic law, why can't the Democrats?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

"I mention that my fellowship money is fully taxable?"

Well cry me a river!

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I think people who pay a smaller percentage of what they make in taxes than I do, but want me to continue paying at a higher rate than they do, are the selfish, self-serving ones.

And Jennifer, why should you be exempt from taxes??? Heck, I bet your fellowship is funneled with government monies just like my wife's was when she did her fellowship- and she had to pay taxes. And she was paid far below market rates and served in a medically underserved area! I think you represent just another instance of liberal hypocrisy- what is good for everybody else is NOT what I want for me. "Take THEIR money!"

I do not have a problem paying more in taxes than others who make less than I do, but it should be proportinate and equitable. I hope the flat tax movement continues gaining steam.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Before this discussion gets any further out of hand, I'd just like to interject that it's not necessarily productive for hard core conservatives and confirmed liberals to debate the central values of their respective political affiliations. We aren't going to turn Jim and Jarvis into tax-and-spend liberals; they aren't going to turn us into fiscal conservatives. Speaking only for myself, I am more interested in hearing debate over the nuances of the various parties - - I wish Jim and Jarvis would explore the areas in which they disagree with one another, or with other conservatives, just as I enjoy listening to the folks on the liberal end of the spectrum debate the finer points of their ideas for running the country.

As an aside: good Lord, Jen, how do you manage to pay so much in taxes? Are fellowships taxed at a higher rate than income? I was very recently in that same income bracket with no deductions other than the standard one, and the most I ever paid was about 29% -- and that included Social Security and self employment taxes.

(You don't have to answer that; I just don't think your taxation experience is the norm by any stretch.)

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Beth, the reason why I pay so much in taxes is because about a third of my income comes from investments, and yes, I paid a lot of Capital Gains tax last year.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Ah, I see. Then you're in the same boat as Jeremy. My tax advice to you is to find a boyfriend who makes a little more money than you do, buy a house with him, and then let him take the mortgage deduction in exchange for paying your capital gains taxes for you. It's worked out well for Jeremy, I think.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jarvis and Jim, I did not mean to imply that I think I deserve to pay fewer taxes myself. The only reason why I mentioned that Reagan established taxation of fellowships is to point out that he raised taxes for those with lower incomes (i.e. graduate students) while lowering them for the wealthy.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jennifier,

Many would call you wealthy. Afterall, you have investment income (which, worst case, is taxed at a marginal tax rate). I have never had any more investment income than $10 in interest on my checking (NOW) account.

And for your tax planning needs:

"The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 reduced capital gains taxes from a top rate of 28% to 20% on investments held more than 12 months. People in the 15% federal tax bracket now pay a 10% capital gains tax. It sure makes sense to hold onto your investments for at least one year." Otherwise, it is paid at the marginal tax rate. - Quicken.com

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Why is it that people in this topic have such a hard time spelling my name correctly?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

What matters to me on election day is not having to hear politicians rhetoric on tv the radio or any where else, because that's what it is empty, vacant, rhetoric for the masses.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

1. Many or most graduate fellowships are in the $12,000 range. They have not risen with inflation or with the healthy economy. Taxes on them were introduced in the mid-1980s, resulting in a real decline in graduate student wages. I survived on mine because I was overseas and wasn't trying to pay an American rent with it. Why should you care, those of you who have "real" jobs? Well, your kids might want to go to grad school some day. Or you might want to go back to school. I don't think it's unreasonable to think an advanced degree or an academic career shouldn't be out of reach for smart, dedicated people who don't have trust funds.

2. My issue is health care - what Jo said - and I think the big party that will do fewer bad things to the health care system is the Democrats. Ergo, Gore/Lieberman. I like the sound of that: Gore/Lieberman. My childhood eye doctor was named Dr. Lieberman. He told my parents I didn't need an operation because my eyes would uncross naturally, and they did. Also, Al Gore invented the Internet, despite his sophomore grades being even worse than mine, and I like the Internet. So yeah, Gore/Lieberman.

3. Did I mention that I'm working on moving to Australia?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jo Writes:

I believed Anita Hill, and I always will

I too, believe Anita; but this is what *I* think happened:

A friendly, jokearound relationship developed betweeen Hill and Thomas; that in its context wasn't inappropriate. But when word of this got out - via an NPR report, IIRC - the senate had their hand forced to hold hearings.

When the hearings were announced, Hill was influenced to cast their relationship outside of the context in which it developed; making Thomas look bad.

In essence, both sides told the truth; but because the context in the hearings was different than the context of the relationship; it looked bad.

Furthermore, Jennifer Wrote:

His jobs as aide to Senator Danforth, and at the DOE and EEOC were, likewise, distinguished jobs, but they did not involve the practice of law.

The Legislative assistant job may not be the practice of law; but the DOE and EEOC jobs are very much lawyer-type jobs. They aren't in- courtroom jobs; but that isn't the distinguishing characteristic of the practice of law.

On the topic of character, Matt asked Jim:

now that we know where you stand on the issue of character, did you decide to vote for Bush before, during, or after he spoke at Bob Jones University?

What does that have to do with W's character? His message on tolerance was consistant; even if it was delivered in a location run by intolerant people. In fact, didn't BJU modify their interracial dating regulations shortly after W's appearnce? (Sure, it still isn't what one would call "tolerant"; but they don't allow unchaperoned dating at all, so it isn't that much off the curve.)

Lastly, on taxes, Jennifer wrote:

The concept of a "surplus" is kind of laughable when you consider that most of that "surplus" is an accounting fiction using the social security "trust fund" to balance the books.

our vast national debt, Which, at relatively low interest rates; doesn't make sense to pay off early.

our troubled public schools, Which should not be a federal concern in any way, shape or form. Leave the public school decisions to the local school districts instead of trying to impose a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate.

our crime-ridden streets Again, a local concern. Crime in my locality is a lot different than in yours; and it doesn't make much sense to seize wherewithall from the rural west (where there has been a distrubing increase in cattle rustling) to solve the urban drug problem, to cite one example.

and our lack of a national healthcare system. Which is a different matter than people not having access to health care.

Beth wants to hear debate over the nuances of the various parties , so here is my rant on taxation.

All tax systems are unfair. The fairest is the one that has the least inequitable impact. Its time to end the fiction of "targeted tax cuts" to the "middle class". The fungability of money, the localized cost-of-living, and the liberty-stealing idea of taxation as a social influence strip the whole idea to its core: The politicizing of class envy.

In the end, of course, that means that some people will have more of a benefit from tax cuts/increases than others; but that is fairer than deliberately penalizing/rewarding people.

Idealy; I would like to see the adoption of a flat tax with *no* deductions and only a (say) $35,000/person AGI exception.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Gore invented the internet!! LOL!

I had a small invention a few years back you may have heard of......the wheel!!!

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Ideas count... yes.

Character - only minimally. Clinton's foreign policy sucks whether or not Monica's involved. There are plenty of examples of ruthless assholes as president who managed to do just fine.

What counts is who can do the job the best. Clinton alienates the other party by not playing nice, which leads to government shutdowns. I don't see the same with Gore... I see him trying to make the most people happy. In Texas, I see Bush get along quite well with the democrats. However, to prove I'm not totally Republican, I'd no sooner vote for Tom Delay (maj whip HR) than I'd vote for Hitler. I find him rude, abrasive and devisive.

It comes down to who can do the job.. Who can lead.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Why is it that people in this topic have such a hard time spelling my name correctly?

Ah Jennifer, that's what happens after you listen to Rush Limbaugh for extended periods of time. Neural pathways atrophy, the cerebral cortex shrivels, your gray matter decays, that sort of thing.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

What does that have to do with W's character? His message on tolerance was consistant;(sic)even if it was delivered in a location run by intolerant people. In fact, didn't BJU modify their interracial dating regulations shortly after W's appearnce? (sic)(Sure, it still isn't what one would call "tolerant"; but they don't allow unchaperoned dating at all, so it isn't that much off the curve.)

Well, why did GWB accept the invitation instead of politely declining?

The answer, of course, is BJU had what folks in marketing refer to as a "target audience"--that is, people he could count on for votes.

Basically, GWB decided that making a speech (to get votes) at a racist university was more important than declining the invitation as a matter of principle.

And that, my friend, speaks volumes about George W. Bushs "character".

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I certainly agree with Beth that it's not worth having this discussion degenerate into repeatedly arguing points on which liberals and conservatives will never agree. So I'm not gonna. In fact, I am going to try to ignore this for now because as someone else said somewhere here...this can become an incredible time sink, and it has... and I hope I can retreat and do some other stuff for a while.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Jim writes (way up there somewhere)

Well cry me a river!

And that, right there, is why I'm not a Republican. I'm not a big fan of all the Dems stand for, but at least I think their hearts are in the right place. They're trying. Yeah, maybe sometimes they try and fail, but at least they make the effort to form policy that helps everyone and not just people who make a lot of money.

I just get the sense that the Republicans solution to a lot of problems facing the poor is to pray that they all somehow go away and never come back. And that's not acceptable to me.

To quote Beth, "Your mileage may vary."

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Oh, and I totally have Ted Kennedy's back on trying to get the miniseries moved, despite the fact that I'm a journalist by trade. If it were my life, and my campaign, you bet your ass I'd be calling NBC to get them to pull the plug.

Of course, if I were NBC, I might not have made that decision. But if you want to blame someone, I'd blame the network.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Character does matter.

I remember Al Gore's father, who fought LBJ on the matter of Vietnam even though they shared the same party, and stayed in power for years and years, in the conservative South, despite his dovish views. He was right then, even though the rest of the country didn't agree with him.

My sister talks movingly of Gore, whom she babysat for when he and Tipper had but one kid. How he went out of his way to take her home in a snowstorm (no mean challenge in Nashville streets, where snowplows and snowpreparedness is minimal) and about how much he impressed her.

Did he make some bad decisions, like the Buddhist Temple incident? Yeppers. I think he let loyalty to Clinton override his scruples. Nor did he "invent the Internet"...yet he was one of the Internet's most ardent supporters and champions in its fledgling times.

He doesn't have the charisma of a Clinton, for sure. And he may be defeated this election. It wouldn't surprise me. A combination of Clinton fatigue and the feeling that no REAL man can be a vice- president---what you might call the Hubert Humphrey syndrome---may defeat him.

It'll be our loss.

We will be the poorer for it. I think literally---because if it is just the new economy (computers etc.) driving this economic upturn, then why didn't Japan benefit just as much or more, or much of Western Europe? But also in other ways. In the social programs we will lose, and the gun lobby and polluters.... that will win.

Yeah, we can vote for someone who is not slightly left of the middle, who has no chance of winning, and ensure Dubya's next four years.

I think, though, if ---on the odd chance he might win---Al Gore will surprise a lot of you.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

I'm not addressing the rest of what you say, Al... but I don't think taking your babysitting home in the snow (presumably they were already OUT in that snow) is much of any above and beyond. What ELSE would he or any other babysitting client have done?

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

1) The "Moderate" Rockefeller Republicans (Gerald Ford etc). These are people who don't really want to be Republicans, but by some cruel twist of fate they are. These are ones that the media will describe as "growing in office". They are very small in numbers but large in influence. To the extent that the major media can tolerate Republicans at all, these are the ones they like. Rockefeller Republicans get attention way out of proportion to their numbers. This species has been hunted to extinction in Texas.

2) The Religious Conservative wing: Not a majority, but exist in significant numbers. These Republicans are the ones dead set against abortion. Social issues such as school choice are paramount to these folks. The "character issue" is large with them. After social issues, taxes worry them since there are so many dual income middle class couples in this group. They are smart and very, very, hard working. In a weird twist of thinking, they don't trust any of the government except criminal prosecutors. They vote in large numbers. This group totally dominates my local party here in Williamsome County, Texas.

3) Economic Conservative/Libertarian wing. I'm one of these. We believe in low taxes, limited regulations, tort reform, school choice, and a strong military. We don't care at all who folks choose to sleep with, but we hate the groupism that our Democrat friends favor. We want everyone to be judged by the content of their character not the color of their skin. Most of us are not rich, but we have nothing against rich people who earned their money fair and square (as opposed to tort lawyers and politicians). We don't like abortions, but our main desire is that our taxes not go to fund them. We'd be real happy to see no federal funding of abortions and a ban on late term abortions (I personally think this compromise could be sold to the majority of Americans). G.W. Bush is one of us.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Given her her money and let her drive HERSELF home, of course. She was seventeen or eighteen at the time. And driving within town in snow in Nashville...Gore worked for the paper at the time, not too far from their apartment off West End...is a whole different thing from driving her out to the suburbs, down twisty roads in the Tenessee hills. And of course, mostly it was the way he impressed her....much as he also impressed his college roommate, Tommy Lee Jones.---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

The first part of my last post was trucated, I was responding to Beth's request for a discussion of the disagreements amoung us "Wascally Wepublicans".

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Hmm...very different customs than I'm used to - ensuring my daughter's safety from my porch back to my porch goes with the territory for babysitting, was that way when I was, and is that way with every parent I know that uses babysitters that come to their house (as opposed to bringing their children to someone else's.

(And again, not commenting on other factors that impressed your sister - I just find that one to be no great shakes, especially for anyone who wants a sitter to come back.)

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

Al, on two occasions I had the privilege to hear Hubert Humphrey speak back when I was in high school. Even then I disagreed with his ideas, but he was wonderful and totally honest man, and a wonderful speaker. There wasn't an ounce of guile or deception in him. He wanted high taxes to fund a huge goverment and made no bones about it.

I didn't know Mr. Humphrey, he wasn't a friend of mine, but I'm sure of one thing. Al Gore is no Hubert Humphrey.

-- Anonymous, August 16, 2000

But that's just it! Humphrey was a wonderful flaming liberal in the old tradition, who fought passionately on the matter of cival rights, and was seen as very much an up-and-comer, in the early sixties.

Then Johnson made him his VP...and we all sort of subconsciously started seeing him as a WEAK man, a toadie to Johnson. It's a handicap that a lot of ex-vice-presidents get. Tainted ---unjustly, I think---with the vices of the president they work under---and given none of the credit with who they were before.

Instead, we chose Nixon. (Who had a similar stigma in the Kennedy election, being Eisenhower's VP, but had eight years to recover therefrom) And we know where THAT led.

An analogy might spring to mind....

I remember sitting on the fence about Clinton UNTIL HE PICKED GORE AS HIS RUNNING MATE. Then, I figured if Clinton had sense enough to do that, he must have SOMETHING going for him...

A lot of us (no, not all) here in Tennessee (who after all, knew his record best up to that time) felt the same.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Al, I lived in TN at the time (born in Memphis, school in Knoxville, first job in Nashville). I too am familar with Al Gore.

Many of us in TN knew for sure Clinton was an idiot when he picked Gore. I mean really, the tree hugger who was scared of cars? That is who he was then, well, that and Sr.'s son. He has improved his image since, but he was not THAT highly regard back then. I think many folks thought that Clinton was just trying to shore up the southern vote which was starting to turn conservative.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Ok, so spelling isn't my strong suit.... but Matt says: The answer, of course, is BJU had what folks in marketing refer to as a "target audience"--that is, people he could count on for votes.

Basically, GWB decided that making a speech (to get votes) at a racist university was more important than declining the invitation as a matter of principle.

And that, my friend, speaks volumes about George W. Bushs "character".

I say it does. I see a man walk in front of an audence; and have the courage of his convictions to speak what he believes, regardless of how popular that view is with his audence.

Further, I would dispute that BJU is much of Bush country. I would see them more as Buchanonites. Pichfork Pat's messages of strident pro-life, anti-feminism, and anti-immigration resonate much more closely with BJU's Evangelical Pentecostalism. (Pro-life, women as subservient to men, trade alliances will bring about the one world goverment - leading to the Pope as anti-Christ - as prophecied in the Book of Reveliations (as they interpret it)).

In fact, BJU extended invitations to all the canadites, and the courageous thing - if Al or Bill really believed their message of tolerance - would have been for them to go and read BJU the riot act.

Anyway, lets compare Bush's courage of his convictions with Al Gore and Joe Liberman:

Al was: Pro-life. Al is now: Pro-choice. When did this conversion come about? When he needed rank and file Democrat support. Or, was his pro-life stance the front to get some initial Dixiecrat support?

Al is: Anti auto industry. Al is also: Pro auto industry. He is anti industry when speaking to one of his core constituancies; environmentalists. He is pro industry every time he sets foot in Michigian and speaks in front of the UAW.

Joe was: pro school voucher. Joe is: against vouchers. This change came about when he got tapped as Veep; given the tremendous support the NEA gives to the party.

Joe was: against affimative action. Joe is: for affirmative action. This change came when he needed to mollify the DBC.

Admittitly, Al Gore's pro-life/pro-choice flipflop could be a true change in thinking; which is actually a good thing. I don't give him any quarter on the car thing - I see it up close and it is nothing but blatant pandering.

-- Anonymous, August 17, 2000

Tim you forgot two other things.

Gore is: anti-"big oil" companies because they pollute and encourage use of their products which increases greenhouse emissions and they're bad bad bad, and Bush/Cheney are bad bad bad because they've both worked in the oil industry.

Gore is: pro-big oil companies, so long as his family is benefitting from a HUGE investment in Occidental Petroleum. Oops.

Gore is: anti-tobacco. It's the great satan, the killer of all, the destroyer of families, it must be regulated, highly taxed and the companies that push this lethal drug on unsuspecting (!) Americans should have huge punative penalties to pay for their wrongdoing. Plus, tobacco killed his sister.

Gore is: pro-tobacco. When he grows it on his land, and sells it himself to one of those companies and makes some money for it. Oops.

And last but certainly not least -- Gore is: pro-working families. Blah blah blah campaign rhetoric cakes.

Gore is: anti-working families. He's a slumlord. 'Nuf said.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

That was three things. Sorry.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Jarvis: I didn't claim everyone who lived in Tennessee wanted Gore on the ticket...there are always dissenters...but I think the fact that Clinton carried Tennessee in the last two elections (when you keep in mind the plethora of Republican governors of this state, with the exception of Ned McWherter lately) by a rather large margin said something. As I said, my sister has a personal connection with him. Babysat for him for over a year (indeed, much of the money she saved up from that financed her second trip to France) and her best friend doing it when she couldn't make it. They're both voting for Gore, having observed him first hand, close hand, over a reasonably long period of time. And my sister is usually as cynical about politicians as they come.

Maybe you should consider how much you think you know of Gore is spin, and how much truth.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Al, according to www.portraitofamerica.com Bush is slightly ahead of Gore in Tennessee. This is in stark contrast to Texas, where Gore voters are as rare as hens teeth.

I think the contrast is very telling.

In his convention speech last night Gore used the words "fight" or "fighting" 29 times. This is a key difference between Bush and Gore. Gore would continue Clinton's highly partisan and confrontational style of dealing Congress. While counting coup on the "enemy" is fun, in this style hurt Clinton more than it did us Republicans. The "fight,fight,fight" technique guarantees that Gore would have the same "legacy" problem as Clinton.

Bush, on the other hand, is a doer, not a talker. He is able to find the common ground with Democrats and get things done. It's clear that the voters in Texas and Tennessee understand this.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Al, I gotta lay it down. Your sister babysat for Gore when she was a teenager. She now lives in France. What the hell about babysitting for him years ago gives her special insight into this man that screams out his immense qualification for the office that he seeks? Answer: nothing legitimate. Frankly, the whole "My sister babysat his kids" bit is getting old. It's meaningless. Let.It.Go.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Dreama, calm down.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Personal impressions by someone I trust matter to me. Yet---Fine, Dreama. Considered it dropped, if you will.

Jim: question. (I question your figures--or rather, the source you cite's figures--- in Tennessee, of course, but the truth will come out in the election. BOTH of us might be wrong.) And this is not saying that Gore didn't inherit a political legacy ALSO---but do you think that Bush would be a national candidate if his father wasn't a former President? Or even governor of Texas? A businessman whose disastrious business deals were only salvaged by his father's wealthy friends helping him?

I ....rather doubt it.

Oddly enough, judging by the Bush speech recently given in Memphis today---as usual, long on rhetoric, short on specifics...I would say it is BUSH who is coming out fighting. Gore didn't even mention Bush's name last night...and Bush seems to be in attack-mode.

After watching the last stages of the primary between him and McCain, and the false misleading ads his friends put out about McCain, I suspect this is the beginning of such---not the end.

I am VERY amused at the turn things have taken this year. You see, Bush has learned very well---but not from his father.

From Clinton.

He is moving his party towards the center. He is trying to take some of the best points of the opposition party (shoring up education, social security) and make it his own. He is trying to charismasize his way to the Oval Office, and yes, he might very well succeed.

Because he has learned the Clinton way of politicizing.

The Republicans have met Clinton---and ARE him, now.

Everything you used to despise in Clinton ---the slickness, the pandering to others, the saying what is politically expedient in order to get elected---you are praising, as if in a funhouse mirror--- in George Bush.

I find it very amusing, personally.

---Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

By the way, Jim, I mean NO animosity towards you, perhsonally, no matter what I think about Bush. We each have our own favorite---you as a conservative Texan, I as a liberal Tennessean (named Al, yet..)...and I am VERY much looking forward to the debates that have finally been accepted. I suspect they would be very interesting...

Especially if Buchanan (whose politics I deplore but whose oratory I admire) is included--- and even Nadar. I thought Nader's latest ad---- despite my NOT throwing my vote away to him thus ensuring Dubya's election----"priceless."

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Al, personal impressions that are a good twenty years old carry little or no weight with me, and certainly shouldn't in this case. It's another lifetime and two sets of Gore "core values" ago. I'd be hard pressed to think of a major issue he hasn't flip flopped on in the last fifteen years, let alone twenty, and no matter how "nice" he is, that's what counts.

As for this thought on Bush: "He is moving his party towards the center. He is trying to take some of the best points of the opposition party (shoring up education, social security) and make it his own. He is trying to charismasize his way to the Oval Office, and yes, he might very well succeed."

Well, that's a nice piece of fiction. The "best points of the opposition party" that you've refered to have always been key issues of concern within the GOP and education has been the cornerstone issue of both GWB terms as Texas governor. And while I have no clue what the hell charismasize means, I don't think that it's possible for anyone to have less charisma than wooden plank Gore, so it's not fair to compare him to any of his opponents on that measure.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Dreama, did any sibling of yours ever babysit for Al Gore? No. How then can you even attempt to argue from your position of relative ignorance, when Al has a direct connection to the man himself?

I'll say one thing, though: I prefer bush to gore. There is already more than enough gore on television, but we can always use some more bush.

Heh.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Excellent point, Dave... That's it, everyone! If you don't have a relative that's babysat for one of the candidates, don't bother trying to make an informed decision about who do vote for, because only the babysitter knows for sure!

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

Well, Dreama, this flip-flop....is it anything comparable to Bush SR's initial backing of choice in abortion...and his later renunciation of such a stand...or the even more infamous, "Read my lips"?

Personally, I think most of us have altered or modified our views over time. I certainly have. I would be rather afraid of someone who said he hadn't changed ANY of his views in twenty years, and treated the world as if it were still 1980.

However, in my experience, MOST people don't change their basic PERSONALITY over the years. Unless, of course, they come over a great deal of stress or abuse.

(Boy for someone who was sick of hearing about something, you seem to be good at keeping it alive...)

As for education and social security, and the Republican "concern" for such...that doubtless comes as a surprise to Pat Buchanan who, when he was a Republican (and still does) as a half-a-Reform party, wants to abolish the Department of Education. Or for that matter, the Republicans who opposed FDR's installing of social security...

I'm not saying they weren't concerned about it, or didn't want to modify either stance. But traditionally, Democrats are perceived as being THE candidates who help the education or social security institutions.

Even as the Republicans were perceived as the financially sound, rather than spendthrifts like the Democrats...and Clinton stole THAT idea, with "It's the Economy, Stupid!"---among many other Republican ideas.

Similarly, Bush is running as a "compassionate conservative", touting his record on education in Texas, and his plans to experiment with Social Security and make it more efficient.

If you don't see any irony here, I'm afraid I can.

Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 18, 2000

I re-post with permission the following letter, by Texas State Rep. Glen Maxey--forwarded to me by a friend of mine, a member of Results, which is a nonprofit, grassroots citizens' lobby working to create the political will to end hunger and the worst aspects of poverty. They also lobby to help get funding for micro-credit for third world women.

This letter illustrates a bit about the Bush concerns re: Texas children.

The Kids George W. Bush Left Behind

>>"Leave No Child Behind?" When I was a child, my mama taught me that you don't try to lie your way out of a bad situation. You only make it worse. Governor Bush, let's tell the truth about kids in Texas.

>>The Republican Party has selected as the theme of their first day of their national convention a very compassionate sounding slogan. I just wish they weren't fibbing and making up tall tales to cover what they and their nominee have done for children in Texas. But before, I'm caught in telling my own fib let me correct that. I should have said: "what they and their nominee have FAILED to do for children in Texas."

>>I know a little about George W. Bush's record in Texas. You see, I am a member of the Texas Legislature with about 120,000 very caring, compassionate constituents. One of those "compassionate" constituents is Governor George W. Bush. I also happen to serve on the Human Services Committee and the Public Health Committee in the House and have watched the Governor and his administration's policies about children.

>>Leave no child behind? Let's talk about the kids George W. Bush fought to leave behind.

>>We can start with a very public debate over insuring some of the 1.4 million uninsured kids in Texas. Congress created a Children's Health Insurance Program for the children of working Texans with low incomes. The tobacco settlement assured that Texas had adequate non-tax generated dollars to pay our state's share. It was a no-brainer to create a program to cover the maximum number of children: almost a half million who live in families below 200% of poverty.

>>Although Bush could have started planning the program a year or so earlier and just waited for the Legislature to appropriate the funds for it in the 1999 legislative session, his administration sat idly by until the Legislature mandated the program. We're just now enrolling kids. thousands of children were left behind for over a year when the program could have been up and running last September.

>>But most amazingly, Bush took a position and steadfastly fought to limit coverage for kids up to only 150% of poverty. That position would have left behind about a quarter of million Texas children.

>>He even said to me upon unanimous passage of the program covering the maximum number of children: "Glen, congratulations on the Children's Health Insurance Program. You crammed it down our throats." He surely left me with the impression that he didn't care that he was going to leave those families uninsured.

>>What about the hundreds of thousands of Texas children who have no health coverage because they have not been informed that they qualify for Medicaid?

>>What about the thousands of children in Texas with asthma because of our poor air quality? More than 1,000 polluters have been "grandfathered" without permits for almost 30 years in Texas. When I tried to bring them into compliance with clean air standards, Governor Bush led the fight to let them "voluntarily" clean up. The Governor's staff even let the lawyer for the Texas Chemical Council draft his version of the bill. Those kids are left behind under a cloud of smog and health threatening situations.

>>What about his insistence on a property tax reduction for homeowners when the Legislature wanted to guarantee funding for kindergarten and pre-school programs? (Texas still doesn't fund kindergarten for all our children.) Where was he when legislators pushed for a $6,000 pay raise for teachers? Well, he was arguing for only $1500.

>>What about his loud, long and vociferous support for vouchers for public education dollars to flow to private schools? It was clear to the majority of the Legislature that we'd see billions of dollars siphoned away from public education, leaving many children to remain in underfunded public schools. It was pretty clear that the poorest kids would be left behind.

>> What about his veto of a bill that I sponsored setting up parental involvement programs in the public schools of Texas? Governor Bush said it wasn't necessary in his veto message.

>>What about his veto of a bill to coordinate hunger programs in Texas? When the press inquired about hunger in Texas, Bush asked, "Where?"

>>George Bush should be ashamed of himself for letting the Republican National Convention distort the true record in Texas. Don't be fooled by cute kids surrounding him in campaign photo ops. The real picture tells a different story.

>>Governor, I like you as a person and as a human being. But your record does not live up to your rhetoric - and I do not like the idea of it being distorted.

>>Hopefully you will still be Governor of this state in January 2001 so we can work together to take care of the problems facing all the children who ARE being left behind during your race for the White House.

>>(Glen Maxey of Austin, Texas is a Democratic state representative who represents Governor George W. Bush in the Texas Legislature)

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2000

Oops, I'm not too handy with the html ...so sorry.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2000

I dunno, jo---I think you made your point, handy with the html or not.--Al of NOVA NOTES.

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2000

Thanks for fixing that, Beth, and thanks, Al. :-)

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2000

"Dreama calm down" heh

-- Anonymous, August 19, 2000