NT

-- (raven@never.more), October 12, 2000

Answers

top

-- (raven@never.more), October 12, 2000.

Bush really did his homework regarding foreign policy. What was most amusing, though, was that he spent most of his time complimenting and agreeing with nearly every foreign policy decision made in the previous administration. Instead of being the candidate for "change," it seems that he's Gore's biggest fan.

Since Bush and Chaney had been harping over and over on the point that the military is overextended, Bush was asked where he would pull out troops. He responded with Hati, where we already have only a handful of troops, and the Balkans - but not right now. So where are we overextended again?

Most polls determined that Bush won based on the fact that expectations were set so low that if he was even able to pronounce the names of foreign countries correctly, it would be considered a victory. Gore didn't sigh or act like a pompous ass this time, so of course people thought he was a wuss.

If nothing else, the constant agreement in the debate highlighted the fact that the candidates are probably more similar than different. Since they're both now trying to appeal to that small undecided section of voters, that probably makes sense. However, the tack they've both taken is considerably left of center, which may tick off some of Bush's far right supporters. But really, who else are they gonna vote for? Buchanan? LOL

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 12, 2000.

I didn't see it either. In retrospect of today's events, was anything significant said by either one about the Middle East?

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), October 12, 2000.

Considering that Bush was suposedly a bumbling idiot in foreign policy he more than held his own. I think he may have convinced those on the fence that he has the brains to deal with foreign powers.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 12, 2000.

I didn't see it either. In retrospect of today's events, was anything significant said by either one about the Middle East?

They both said it was really bad, terrorists who blew up the boat should be found and punished, Arafat and Barak should make peace, yadda yadda yadda.

Considering that Bush was suposedly a bumbling idiot in foreign policy he more than held his own. I think he may have convinced those on the fence that he has the brains to deal with foreign powers.

He knows how to study up on what's going on, that's for sure. But his major foreign policy choices were no different than Gore's, so how would he be any different than Gore? He also didn't know enough to support his own contention that the military is overextended. It's one thing to know lots of names and places, but one has to have a clearer definition of foreign policy than just "we'll do whatever is in our best interests," which he kept repeating over and over. I mean, duh, of course we're gonna do whatever's in our best interests.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 12, 2000.

Link to transcript.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 12, 2000.

Thanks Hmmmm for the excellent summary/reaction and David L. for the link. I'm working overtime, again. No TVs at work, limited internet. The crisis in the ME was overshadowing other concerns. Now there's a 20' x 40' hole in one of our battleships. I find myself almost agreeing with some of the conspiracy nuts that the timing is certainly "interesting."

-- (Raven@never.more), October 12, 2000.

Raven, Since no one answered your question, I will take a shot at it. Four national polls all indicate Bush won the debate, either by a small margin or a huge margin, depending on the poll. Focus groups on the networks indicated the same thing, in one case by a huge margin.

Let me make this perfectly clear, Bush scored big time last night, and the Gore campaign knows it. Get ready for some negative ads ....from both sides.

-- David (David@bzn.com), October 12, 2000.

We already have the negative ads here, David. MI is a swing state, unfortunately. At least Chaney didn't visit today. He stayed down in Ohio. I like Chaney, but I don't enjoy the visits from the candidates because their motorcades must be escorted to and from places, which blocks our already congested roadways. I was afraid that if Gore had won the debate, we could count on more grip and grin events, but we just might be spared. Or maybe both will go off to the ME with Chelsea in tow. I can see it all now: that's the latest remake of the "Wizard of Oz," minus a few characters.

-- (raven@never.more), October 12, 2000.

I saw some irony in a headline today.

The headline on the front page of this morning's local newspaper said "Gore, Bush find accord on Mideast." What Gore and Bush think about the Mideast though isn't nearly as important as what the Arabs and Israelis think about it...something that's been made very clear by today's events.

-- The (irony@of.it), October 12, 2000.

1. Why did George Bush mislead the American people in the first debate by saying Gore's math was "fuzzy" when Gore challenged his spending programs and proposed tax cuts? Gore's numbers, as every observer has pointed out, were correct. Bush either lied or he cannot add. Bush's proposed tax cut would award 43 percent of tax reductions to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. According to the Treasury Department, this group provides only 20 percent of the tax revenue. Even if a massive tax cut were justified in present circumstances, and it is not, what is the justification for such a "rich people's bonus" if it is not, as said the New York Times, "to comfort the already comfortable"?

2. How can the Republican ticket truthfully contend that the Democrats are engaging in "class warfare" when it is the Republicans who, through their risky massive tax cut scheme, punish those in the middle class and below by demanding that the very wealthy take a disproportionate share of the budget surplus? How can Bush and Cheney honestly say their proposals seek to benefit all Americans when, in fact, the tax cut they propose for the wealthiest 1 percent ($690 billion) is more than twice as much as their proposed outlay for national defense, education and healthcare combined ($250 billion)? When vice-president Gore pointed this out, Bush again said his numbers were "fuzzy." But, as the conservative Dallas Morning News noted: "Mr. Gore was correct." Bush and Cheney are not being truthful with the American people.

3. Why was George Bush untruthful with the American people in the first debate when he said of the vice-president that "this man has outspent me"? The truth is, Bush has spent twice as much as Mr. Gore.

4. Why did Bush say in the first debate that under his prescription drug plan an elderly couple who earn $25,000 and cannot afford their drug bill could expect immediate help under his plan when such a statement is untrue? They would get no such help. And why, when the vice-president challenged him on this, did he again mislead the people by saying Gore engaged in more "fuzzy math."

5. Why did Bush indicate he would not try to thwart the FDA's approval of RU-486 when only weeks before he said he would?

6. Why did Dick Cheney say to the American people that the multiple millions he was given by his former employer, Halliburton, came with absolutely no help from the government when, in fact, Halliburton's increased profits are directly tied to a large increase in the number of government contracts the company received, with Cheney's help, during the last several years? Does he also believe that low unemployment and low interest rates have had no business effect? Dick Cheney was dishonest.

7. Why is it more appropriate, according to Cheney, to drill for oil in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, which he supports, than in Cheney's Wyoming, which he fought? Dick Cheney is hypocritical.

8. Does Cheney really think his previous government service had no effect on his securing his job with Halliburton in the first place?

9. Why is it permissible for Cheney to move his voting residence to Wyoming to secure a political advantage regarding the electoral college requirements of the Constitution when others who engage in comparable activity are indicted?

10. Why won't George Bush truthfully answer the question where he would get an extra $1 trillion to pay for his Social Security privatization plan? He says it will come from "the surplus." That's untrue because he has already proposed programs and tax cuts that have taken up this amount.

11. Why will George Bush not answer the question of why he went AWOL for an entire year from the Air National Guard, and why did he ignore orders to report for duty? See http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2000/09/27/index.html And is it true that he was suspended and grounded from flying? If so, why?

12. Why is the use of government power bad when it seeks to help millions of citizens, but okay when used to feather your own nest, as Bush did when he secured a tax increase and utilized the condemnation procedures to take people's land in order to financially advantage himself through the Ballpark at Arlington? Is it true, as one economist has said, that "the largest welfare recipient in Texas is George W. Bush"?

-- Truth (truthh@about.com), October 12, 2000.

Hey Truth, when's the last time you beat your wife?

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), October 12, 2000.

Truth:

You [obviously] read the same stuff as I. I'm still wondering why no one has asked G.W. why he needed a new driver's license number. I can understand renewals, but why a new NUMBER?

Carlos: The author that Truth quoted had valid questions, IMO. Why the sarcasm?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 13, 2000.

Truth,

I'll tell you why. It's because both major parties and their poster boys are full of shit. The surplus that BOTH candidates are playing with is fuzzy math. That's why I will not vote for either one of them. "Oh, but we have to work within the system" say the supporters of the established way. "We need to work for change from within".

Horseshit!

Who was it that once said the definition of stupidity was to keep on doing the same thing while expecting a different result?

Keep voting for the big two parties and things will change, yeah, right, sure they will.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 13, 2000.

""Oh, but we have to work within the system" say the supporters of the established way. "We need to work for change from within"."

Actually, Unk, *I* said that, though it escapes me where I said I was a "supporter of the established way". Nevertheless, I stand by my contention.

It's not "horseshit". How do you cure a disease? Do you do it from "without" or from "within"? I liken the problems of the current two major political parties to a disease and the only way to cure that disease is from within the parties. Harry Browne, Ralph Nader, etc., are NOT the "cure" for the diseased Dem and Repub parties. If you don't change the mindset within those parties, then those parties will never change because of alternative parties, and alternative parties will forever remain, in the view of the general public, as the "fringe movements".

And you know how popular the "fringe" is.

I also remember saying that alternative parties don't hurt (and that they could, in fact, help speed the process in some ways), but I guess you missed that part.

"Who was it that once said the definition of stupidity was to keep on doing the same thing while expecting a different result?"

I don't know, but I don't see that what you're doing deviates from that statement much either.

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 13, 2000.

If you don't change the mindset within those parties, then those parties will never change because of alternative parties, and alternative parties will forever remain, in the view of the general public, as the "fringe movements".

And how does the mindset within those major parties change? When they start to see third parties taking away their votes, that's how. Nothing gets their attention fast than that. Look at how Perot made the deficit a MAJOR issue.

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), October 13, 2000.

Here's Peggy Noonan again, with her take...

The Man George Shultz Saw

Gov. Bush is Reaganesque. Now America knows it.

BY PEGGY NOONAN

Friday, October 13, 2000 12:01 a.m. EDT

Do you sense things are moving, immeasurably but perhaps decisively? I do.

George W. Bush not only won the debate Wednesday night, but in a way that damaged a central assumption of the Gore campaign. That assumption is that Mr. Bush doesn't know very much. But Mr. Bush demonstrated that he knows a lot, and that his common-sense views and observations can be spoken in a common-sense language accessible to all. He sat back in his chair, spoke of America's role in the world, and made it clear that that role should be grounded in moral modesty and strategic realism. He suggested that the various forces at work in the world should be met not with American hubris but with moderation, and with attention to the kind of example we can, as a great power, set. He seemed thoughtful, knowledgeable, and he buried the memory of the less-seasoned Gov. Bush who one day in Boston flailed when pressed by an interviewer who insisted he name the ruler of Pakistan.

But what must have been most painful for Al Gore was that Mr. Bush showed that in six years of government he has learned as much about government and policy as Mr. Gore has in 24 years.

He was Mr. Gore's equal or better. He has come a long way as a candidate. By the end, I thought of something I hadn't thought of in a while. About two years ago I saw George Shultz, a man of great judgment and experience who is both shrewd and wise. Mr. Shultz told me that George Bush, the Texas governor, would run for president, and that he was enthusiastically supporting him.

I was surprised. Isn't Bush . . . young? I asked. He's been governor for one term, is that enough experience?

Mr. Shultz's eyes narrowed, and he shot me a look. I've spent time with him, he said. "He's like Reagan. He's got it." He told me Mr. Bush had a Reaganesque understanding of the world and attitude toward it, and a Reaganesque charm to boot.

I was impressed. It was the moment I started to realize Mr. Bush was coming down the pike.

Watching Mr. Bush in the debate Wednesday night I remembered that conversation and thought: Now I am seeing what George Shultz saw.

In the postdebate analysis Mr. Gore was called "anesthetized." I found him only subdued, but that was not his problem. His problem was that he was so busy constraining his natural aggression, his desire to make himself big by making others small, that he spent all of his energy keeping himself in. And the space left by the absence of his aggression was not filled by warmth or humor or a philosophical turn. It wasn't filled at all.

Or rather it wasn't filled by Mr. Gore. It was filled by Mr. Bush-- with his humor and warmth and a philosophical turn.

As a personality and in terms of character Bush is, of course, more attractive than Gore--more "normal", more genuine and authentic and good natured.

It has been established already in this race that Mr. Gore tells a lot of lies, that he lies a lot even for a politician. But I think it has also been established that Mr. Bush not only does not lie but is probably incapable of lying. He is, transparently and simply, not a liar but a plainspoken teller of the truth as he is able to see it. This is a wonderful thing in anyone, and marvelous in a politician. A palpably honest man running for office in the Clinton era!

A friend of mine who is liberal and a Democrat sighs that Mr. Gore now seems like someone whose innards have been taken over by pod people; he is a robot, or something worse, something--Damien-like!

This is not a new thing to say. But my sense is that all of this, the Bush-knows-his-stuff part and the Gore-is-dishonest part, the Bush-is- a-good-man part and the Gore-is-another-weirdo part, has filtered down in the country in a way that is becoming decisive.

I think Mr. Bush has begun to win. Or rather Mr. Bush has begun to win again. In some immeasurable way he is moving forward, gaining ground, becoming seen by more and more people as a good man who can be a good president. This idea of Mr. Bush is driving forward, and the image of Mr. Gore as the next president is receding, shrinking back.

I think this in part not because of the second debate, but the first.

In the first Bush-Gore debate most of the instant polls and those who chatter on television and write in newspapers, including me, said that Mr. Gore had won. Mr. Bush, to my mind, was not impressive, was on the defensive, did not follow through on his thoughts. That was pretty soon more or less the common wisdom--at least for a few days and at least among the chattering classes.

But only a week after that first debate, the common wisdom has changed. The first debate damaged Mr. Gore, we now know, and not Mr. Bush. It was Mr. Gore's highhandedness, his smugness, the sighs and eye rolling. I had seen the highhandedness--everyone had--but I didn't know it would be received by people as so obnoxious, and that it would ultimately prove so damaging.

People say it was the now-famous "Saturday Night Live" debate skit with the horrid Gore and the bumbling Bush that did it. But that skit didn't give form to public opinion, it caught and reflected public opinion that had already gelled. And why did it gel so critically against Mr. Gore? That's where guessing comes in, and here's mine. People--more people than have been quantified by and spit out into the polls--don't like Al Gore. They are looking for a reason to not vote for him. They want to like Mr. Bush. And if Mr. Bush, in the first debate, didn't give enough reason to like him people were ready enough to respond to the reasons Al Gore gave them not to like him.

In the second debate, Mr. Bush gave plenty of reason to like him. And as Mr. Bush gives them more reasons to be for him they will continue to turn toward him, and the turning I think will be reflected in time in the polls.

When George Bush the elder ran for president in 1988 after eight years as vice president in a stunningly successful administration-- the biggest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history, the impending defeat of Soviet communism--Bush made an argument lifted from Franklin Roosevelt's 1940 campaign. FDR, attempting to become America's first three-term president as the winds of war swept east to west, said: "Don't change horses in midstream." George Bush in 1988 said: When you have to change horses in midstream, doesn't it make sense to take the horse that's going in the same direction?

Mr. Gore has been implicitly making that argument all year. My sense is it is not or is no longer taking. Because too many people think that in the case of Clinton-Gore, the horse didn't take the stream, the stream carried the horse. The horse didn't get us to the shore; Bill Clinton wasn't the hardy cowboy who got us safely across. It was the stream itself--the stream of American invention and entrepreneurship--that pushed the horse across safely. When Mr. Gore makes his argument that he and Mr. Clinton created the new economy, I suspect more and more voters are coming to feel: I was the horse, and 100 million like me, and we made it across the stream carrying these two heavy guys who brag now about how well they wielded the whip.

Some weeks back I called the race the battle of Dumb-Good vs. Evil- Smart. But I must tell you, I just spent five days in America. I left the island on which I live and journeyed through the continent, at least as far as Colorado, and then Indiana. And the strong impression I got is that more voters than I knew see this race more and more as a battle between Good Guy vs. Bad Guy. The idea that Mr. Gore is a phony, a creep, a dishonest guy who doesn't know who he is, is out there. The idea that he'll shape-shift and do and say anything to win is, simply, out there. And so is the idea--there is no polite way to say this--that he is not fully stable, that he is altogether as strange and disturbing as Bill Clinton.

As for Mr. Bush, in conversations with normal people I did not get the impression that they think he's stupid. I got the impression they were debating and making their minds up about his policies. The most striking conversation I had was with an airport van driver, a big strapping mid-20s young man who wants to be a fireman. He told me he wasn't sure whom he'd vote for. I told him that in a time of peace and plenty I'd expect a lot of people to vote for the incumbent, and I asked why he hadn't committed to Mr. Gore. He looked over at me and said, with what seemed some embarassment, "I kind of get the impression he's . . . a liar?" I asked why he hadn't yet gone for Mr. Bush, then. He said he wasn't sure Mr. Bush was right about tax cuts. It seemed clear to me though, the way he described how he saw both men, that his vote, ultimately, wouldn't go to the liar.

No one knows of course, but my sense is that aversion to Al Gore is reaching some kind of critical mass, that the charge that he is a dishonest man at a time when we badly need an honest leader has taken hold, and that this is damaging to Mr. Gore to a greater degree than Bush-isn't-smart-enough has been damaging for Mr. Bush.

I think Mr. Bush is winning, I think it's happening day by day, and I think things will probably get real ugly real soon. The next presidential debate, next Tuesday, should be full of sparks and drama. Mr. Gore won't be constrained next time; by now he's decided the only way to take Mr. Bush is to pound him into the ground. He'll go after Mr. Bush with knives and knuckles. People do what they know how to do, and that's what he knows how to do.

We'll see how Mr. Bush handles it. One thing about him Wednesday night: he sure didn't look afraid. He didn't look cowed. He looked happy. Like someone who knows something.

Ms. Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal and author of "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" (Regan Books, 2000). Her column appears Fridays.

-- eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), October 13, 2000.

A friend of mine who is liberal and a Democrat sighs that Mr. Gore now seems like someone whose innards have been taken over by pod people...

seEMs???? tHE INfidEL hAS FElt ThE MigHTY hAnD oF DIetER, Has HE nOt???? oF COurSE!!!!

gOOd mORnINg!!!

-- Dieter (questions@to.ask), October 13, 2000.

Peggy sure read a lot into Bush simply doing his homework between the first and second debates. However, my favorite line in her article is this one:

But I think it has also been established that Mr. Bush not only does not lie but is probably incapable of lying.

I think I'd have to quote Unk's famous words at this remark.

-- (hmm@hmm.hmm), October 13, 2000.

Truth wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the ass. Anita, come on valid question, give me a break. They have been answered before. Truth doesn't like the answer so keep on asking.

I'll just answer one right now. Cheney's response on the gov not having anything to do with his prosperity in the business sector. If you knew how stupid a question that really is you wouldn't be asking. Do you have any idea what it takes to work with gov contracts? Obviously not. The gov is like any other business. Cheney's company provided a service for the gov and got compensated for it, just like any other business transaction. It had nothing to do with gov's economic policies. As Cheney put it, it wasn't a gift. Wake up and smell the shit you're shovelin' (always liked that line in Die Hard).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 13, 2000.

"And how does the mindset within those major parties change? When they start to see third parties taking away their votes, that's how."

I believe that was covered by my statement (that for some odd reason, you seem to be ignoring): "I also remember saying that alternative parties don't hurt (and that they could, in fact, help speed the process in some ways)..."

So tell me, Unk; what are Browne's "hot buttons" (you know, like Perot's "deficit")? What has he brought to the forefront and made a "MAJOR issue"?

Maria, if it's so difficult to get a gov contract (and I believe we all agree it is), then how is it possible Cheney's company got so much government work? Just because Cheney said "it wasn't a gift", you take that at face value? I'm surprised you don't see the point here; you seem to have no trouble seeing all those "Democratic conspiracies".

-- Patricia (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), October 13, 2000.

Question #1 on the tax proposal Bush's proposed tax cut would award 43 percent of tax reductions to the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers. According to the Treasury Department, this group provides only 20 percent of the tax revenue. So?

Let's dig a little deeper here. A person making a million dollars under Bush's plan will need to pay $330,000. Is that enough for one person to pay in taxes? Is that enough punishment for being successful? While a person making $30,000 will need to pay $3,000. Let's see, the wealthy pay 33% while the poor pay 10%. Is that a fair distribution of the tax burden? I think so. The wealthy are still paying "big time".

Question #2 on rambling How can Bush and Cheney honestly say their proposals seek to benefit all Americans Because it does. It's a cut across the board as opposed to Gore who will only cut taxes for lowest end. I don't think I make a whole lot of money (under $100,000), yet under Gore's plan, I get no relief.

Question #3. Who gives a rip! The author is digging deep here. I could care less about how much each campaign spends. But the bigger question on this topic is why Gore hasn't spoken honestly to investigators on his fund raising trips? Why hasn't Gore spoken up about the White House for rent sign?

Question #4. an elderly couple who earn $25,000 and cannot afford their drug bill could expect immediate help Bush's plan is for those who want it, like an insurance company. I like that much more than Gore's plan which requires all to participate. Gore expects all to pay in. So a retired janitor barely getting by will need to give up (I think) $600 a year, whether he needs meds or not. And so will someone like Bill Gates. So this janitor is actually paying for Bill's meds (if he needs them) when if fact Bill could buy a drug store. Gore's plan affects everyone whether they like it or not. Bush's plan is only for those who need supplemental insurance.

Question #5 on the RU-486 issue. We all know the answer to that one. Like Gore has never flopped on an issue! Why did Gore say he was against abortion and thought Gay behavior immoral during his first years in Washington?

Question #6 already addressed. Question #7 too stupid to actually respond to. The author finds his selection of a drilling site "hypocritical"!

Question #8 on Cheney's position in the private sector. Wow I can't believe this. So what?! A person's past experience definitely has bearing on his next place of employment. That's how it works in life. A company looks at all qualifications of a potential candidate in hiring that person. If management didn't, it would be detrimental to the company. Cheney has good experience and he would be an asset to any company. How can the author attack Cheney on his selection of a job? Or attack a company for wanting that experience?

Question #9 on the change to Wyoming. Please tell me the relevance of this question? Political maneuvering, so? I really don't care if other politicians do it either. If this is the one of the biggest issue the author can identify, then we are doing well.

Question #10 on SS and the surplus. Actually a good question. But I still think his Social Security plan far outweighs any disadvantages in not balancing the budget. I like the idea of giving part of it over to the people to control. I can do better than the gov with my investments. But let me ask the Gore supporters, why doesn't he push the current bill in Congress now on the lock box? The dems are halting the republican bill that would protect SS for our citizens. Gore keeps talking lock box and he could do something right now on it and doesn't.

Question #11 on National Guard duty. Bush did address early on in his campaign. I don't recall the answer.

Question #12. I don't know. I haven't heard about this.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 13, 2000.

Patricia, the government will award a contract to the lowest bid. Let me repeat, no exceptions, the lowest bid based on minimal qualifications, will receive the contract. Cheney's company got the contract, that is to say, they were the lowest, they charged the gov less than any other bidder for the work performed. So what, they made money.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 13, 2000.

There are still questions being asked, despite the fact that SOME people don't care about them.

Questions Asked

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 13, 2000.

Unk, I believe what you paraphrased is someone's definition not of stupidity, but of insanity.

I preferred Ms. Noonan's previously posted columns to this one. I'm much more interested in what she thinks than in what she thinks other people think.

So how does one reform an organization (such a major political party) once it becomes so preoccupied with its own preservation and so out of touch with its traditional ideals (or maybe any ideals). Even with a great influx of people committed to reform, can a critical mass fight successfully against the tide to attain positions of influence.

Forming a new party has its appeal, but if it takes off, that party may too be plagued by cynicism and ideological inertia.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), October 13, 2000.

Back up to the top.

-- Want (to hear@nswers.now), October 17, 2000.

>> ...on the RU-486 issue. We all know the answer to that one. Like Gore has never flopped on an issue! <<

This is always such a lovely answer. It amounts to this: I admit my candidate is evasive and untrustworthy, but this is not relevant because I can name another candidate who is evasive and untrustworthy.

I say, don't vote for either Bush or Gore if you know they are untrustworthy. There are other choices. You can, at a pinch, write in the name of the person you really want. Anyone. Write in your own name, if you can't think of anyone else worthy of your vote.

The only way to restore integrity to the process is to have integrity when you vote. There is no other way. None.

-- Brian McLaughlin (brianm@ims.com), October 17, 2000.

Let's not forget that there's another debate tonight.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), October 17, 2000.