[WOSG]

At least one analysis I'd read indicated that Clinton had the MAJORITY of the vote in enough states to win the Electoral College; if that's the case, every Perot vote could have gone to Bush without changing the outcome of the election.

I am sure that is not the case. Clinton only won 43% of the vote, and did not have a blowout on electoral college.

I agree that Dole was an awful candidate. It kind of underscores my point about how libertarians must behave. Dole nevers articulated WHY YOU SHOULD THINK CONSERVATIVE AND VOTE ACCORDINGLY. He just stated his positions, often without any intellectual girding. Much different from say a Reagan or a Newt Gingrich. With guys like Dole, it just makes it so easy for the Liberals to set the agenda.

I emphatically disagree with Dole vs. Clinton on who would be better as President though. Clinton *was* a flaming liberal on all but the headline issues and only was in the center because he was poll-driven. his judge appointments have been consistent leftists, his appointees passed regulation after regulation, and he did a lot to aid and abet the corruption that increased democrat patronage and power.

Conservatives and Libertarians need to be less concerned about who get into office, and more concerned about the IDEAS that are advocated and advanced. We can only talk about our issues if we get advocates who are Republicans into office, if we make sure Democrats do not have majorities in Congress, and that the media doesnt use their power to set a liberal agenda.

The battle for ideas will continue. In the end, the truth will win.

[Commie Basher]

Men like Dole (and Bush Sr. -- yes, I said SR.) try to make issues of "competence" and "experience" and "leadership." They never learn that such squishy bland concepts don't inspire conservatives, nor libertarians, nor liberals, nor really anyone. I don't think even moderates are especially animated by it.