Replies

No, Maceman's vote alone will not affect the outcome, but as we saw with Clinton's win over Papa, a lot of those can and will turn the tide.

I am not a "Bush-bot", I don't agree with everything that he has done or not done, but I can't see voting third party at this time because of past history.

Don't people have to look at events over the last four years and try to priortize the events? Shouldn't they acknowledge the fact that Bush has tried to work on domestic issues? Even though they have taken a back seat to the terrorist question?

I don't agree with the Homeland Security Act or the Patriot Act, actually I don't agree with anything that takes away my rights as defined under the Constitution and the FIRST 10 Amendments. I would like to see the IRS abolished and NRST put in place. There are loads of things that I would like to see changed, but I don't think they take top priority right now.

No, Maceman's vote alone will not affect the outcome, but as we saw with Clinton's win over Papa, a lot of those can and will turn the tide.

Actually, it's a small number of the Perot votes that turned the tide in '92. Perot received much of his support from states that went to President Bush anyway. Those votes did no harm at all. He may have even helped GHW Bush win a few states by splitting the pro-abortion vote. In some states that went to Clinton, Perot voters were union people who probably would have split evenly between President Bush and Clinton. In a few states, Perot probably made a difference, but I no longer believe he was the primary difference of that campaign.

President Bush broke an important promise and then ran a lousy campaign in '92. Scapegoating Perot is a favorite fallback for Republicans who don't want to learn the lessons of that election, but the outcome likely would have been no different if Perot hadn't joined the race. We can't betray our principles and run bad campaigns and still expect to win.

WFTR
Bill