Your honest reasons for voting the way you do? : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

This election year truely has me confused, for once I thought the third party candidates had an honest chance to really get a significant portion of the vote, everyone I talk to is basically disgusted and discouraged with Bore and Gush. Great, I'm thinking as I proceed to extoll the virtues of all the third party candidates that are available to vote for, perhaps this person will be persuaded and vote to make a change! Most of the time the reponse is " Oh, you don't honestly think........ has a real chance at winning, do you? Or, "But if I vote for........ then.......... will win, and I can't allow that to happen, because he is pro-choice, pro-life, anti-gun, pro-gun, for more taxes, for less taxes," pick one, you get the idea by now! 95% of the people I talk to don't like either the R. or D. candidates, and are actually considering, or are third party voters, most wanting desperately a return to Constitutional basics in this country. I honestly think this is the reason that Clinton was voted in to office twice, people assumed there was no else to vote for that was any better! I always thought you should vote for the candidate you thought was best qualified to lead this country, in the manner that was closest to your personal ideals and beliefs. Granted, there will never be a candidate that matches 100% of your ideals, but there should be some that come close, at the very least, closer than Bore or Gush do! Using your vote to simply "block" another candidate from gaining office is a travesty, and unequivocally a wasted vote. Please try to help me understand your honest reasons for voting for the candidate of your choice, I am not concerned with who you vote for as much as why? I would like to hear EVERYONE'S opinion, so please be brief.

-- Annie Miller (, October 29, 2000


I vote for the canidate that most closely shares my views and values. (Occasionally that is the lesser of two evils) When you do it this way you have to really know how they stand on the the issue(s), not what the media says they believe but what have they said or done in the past, before the election year. Voting records while in office are very important.

No politician has yet done everything exactly like I want him to, but I don't throw out the whole party for a third party just because I disagree on a few issues. It is a system of compromise. I can't have all I want right now so I will take what I can get hoping to move forward toward what I want later.

If you want your politicians to represent you then you have to elect ones that think the way you do.

-- Vaughn (, October 29, 2000.

I like to think I vote fore the same man I did last election. I may vote for him to stay in Washington or I may vote for him to go back where he came from. I try to listen to what a candidates platform is, but the actions of the current office holder tends to carry more weight. In elections such as this one where its all "fresh meat", I try to evaluate the candidates on their past political performance in whatever capacity they served. The main reasons that I vote the way I do is to have my say with my elected represenatives and to guarantee my right to complain about the election results. I was taught, if you don't vote, don't gripe about the outcome.

-- Jay Blair (, October 29, 2000.

This is going to be painful to say, Annie, I love Buchanan,and for the past month have offered myself, life and limb, for this campaign, been working with the state co-ordinator out of Topeka, but you know, there is zilch help, encouragement, feedback, etc, from the national campaign offices. Our state co-ordinator had to beg them for yard signs; for crying out loud. This makes me think....i don't know how I'm gonna makes me wonder if Buchanan is really serious? We definitely need a strong third party...but I don't think such will happen without that....ahem...."R" word!!

-- Beth Weber (, October 29, 2000.

i still do not know who i am going to vote for, third party? maybe

-- renee oneill (, October 29, 2000.

I'm somewhere between a Libertarian and a Republican. The primary reason I wouldn't vote for a third part is I don't want the U.S. to end up like so many other countries where no party has a majority and has to sell itself out to other minor parties. Goverments change on about an annual basis. Take England, Israel and Italy (which, since WW-II, has had more governments than Carter has Little Liver Pills). Basically a choice between the people rule (R) and Big Government rules (D).

-- Ken S. in WC TN (, October 29, 2000.

Dave Duffy for president!

-- Richard V. Miller (, October 29, 2000.

I get the same thing...I'm voting for Ralph Nader because he is the only one that I can see who is truly a pro-environment candidate. Without clean air and water, it won't matter WHO has the most toys, land, or any of our other little conveniences if you can't breathe, and your land and water are poisoned. It's not a matter of 'lifestyle', it's getting down to a matter of livability for ANY carbon-based life form at all. We can work on the rest afterward.

-- Julie Froelich (, October 29, 2000.

Beth and Julie, bravo for being brave enough to "think outside the box" and make the effort for change! Ken, what would be so horrible about having no particular party in control anymore, honestly, if a former governor from the state of Arkansas can be elected to the highest office of our country, twice, I think that is reason enough to demand a change in our two party system. Would certainly give ordinary folks like me or you a better chance to run for public office, and even winning.

-- Annie Miller (, October 29, 2000.

It's getting really crazy out here in Washington State. I get no less than 2 taped phone messages each day from each major party. I have been asked for my opinion on several polls out here for the last month. There are back-to-back ads on teevee, nonstop, especially on the news (where I get the weather report.) I pick up our mail at the Post Office and toss about a pound of the bulk political mail into the recycle bin before I even walk out the door. I can't even fathom how much this is costing the candidates/parties....

Nader is blasting away in Oregon, where his support is percentage- wise, somewhere in the teens. Washington State isn't far behind, with a "take no prisoners" compromises for voting for Gore. Hooray, all the Bush supporters say! I can tell you that the Nader folk say that they are going after the money available to them if they carry more than 5 percent of the popular vote. They will definitely do that in the Pacific Northwest. They know they aren't going to win the election. However, like Perot's third party candidacy, which carried 18 percent of the vote here in Washington in his Presidential bid, support for a third party candidate is taken very seriously.

At any rate, it sure is wild! Our State Senate Office, and local State Representatives races, are also very close. I always vote absentee, so I can vote at any time, having received my ballot last week. There are also so many Initiatives on the Ballot, that I am needing an advanced education to comprehend it all.

Sooo, in answer to your question! I STILL haven't decided who I am voting for President, so I haven't sent in my ballot yet. I look forward to, as well as dread, November 7th. Hmm.. maybe make that November 8th! Anyway, this is almost as crazy as it was while waiting to see if Y2k was going to be a disaster. I hope the outcome is just as benign, whatever it is! And I hope I'm as just as prepared!

-- sheepish (, October 29, 2000.

Its always the same with me. Environment and womens right to choose. I love nature and I want the future homesteaders to have a clean earth. Also I don't want us swamped with unwanted children. I really like the Greens but I think a third party will never be elected so I don't want to waste a vote...Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (, October 29, 2000.

Kirk,please reread my post; your vote is not wasted by voting third party candidate, take the intiative, vote for the change you want, the revolution has to start somewhere. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, October 29, 2000.

Why will I vote the way I'm planning to?

I will vote for the candidate and where they stand on the issues, but one thing that is a MUST is having someone that I think will bring the most honesty and honor back to the office of presidency. We sure haven't had honesty and honor with our current president. I can't understand yet why he wasn't booted out of office.

I don't like all of the stories that Vice-president Gore gives us whether embellishment or just poor reading of the teleprompter. If I can't trust him now, I sure as heck can't trust him once he gets in office. Those feelings take a back seat to where he stands on the issues.

I guess you know that means my vote will go to Bush unless something major changes between now and election day.

To sum up, I've not been so impassioned about an election since Former President Carter lost re-election. So glad that we live in a country of free speech where we can voice opinions openly.

Now, everyone get out and vote for the candidate of YOUR own choice, or be quiet when things don't go as you would like. If your candidate of choice loses, at least you can say you did your part.

-- Notforprint (, October 30, 2000.

Annie, my guide for voting is to vote as if I had the only vote that would be counted. No one totally represents my views on everything, so I just pick whoever comes the closest.

I am totally disgusted with both major political parties and their candidates, have been for years -- I'm voting third party.

-- Joy Froelich (, October 30, 2000.

For the people who say 'Nader knows he can't possibly win' and "Nader only has 15% of the vote', may I point out that Jesse Ventura was listed in the polls as having only 8% of the vote?? I guess HE didn't know he couldn't possibly win...something to think about, hey?

-- Julie Froelich (, October 30, 2000.

The big question is: Do you want to wake up on November 8th and see the headlines that Geo. W. Bush is going to be the next President of the United States? The question is not whether or not Ralph Nader got XX percent of the vote. That will not be the headline. So it becomes a question for some: Do you vote your idealism? Or do you vote your pragmatism? That's why so many voters are undecided. Anyone who thinks that that bulk of the undecided population is wavering between Dems and Reps isn't getting it! They are wavering between Gore and Nader. My husband says, okay, if you don't vote for Nader now, when do you start changing things? The next election, or the next one after that, or? When is it convenient to initiate change?

A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush some say. I really think if Bush is elected by the Greens, that there will be hell to pay. If the Green thinking is that strong, look for more Seattle-like WTO riots. The country will look like it did in the late 60's. Polarized again.

Just thinking on my second cup of coffee. Still undecided...

-- sheepish (, October 30, 2000.

I am practically in tears of joy after reading this page! I have not looked at this forum for awhile, because after noticing what seemed like the majority of the posts to be from some very scary people, I was beginning to wonder if I, as a 30-year subscriber to Countryside, had become a lonely little petunia........:) I am ardently supporting Nader, not because I agree with him on everything ( I feel he's a bit too into government regulation, for instance); but because he dares to speak about issues that no one else is addressing, and has the courage to do so. My family's vehicles are plastered with stickers; we are all wearing buttons;we have donated lots of money....of course we know he will not win, but that was never the point, in my opinion. The point is to get the Democrats back to where they are supposed to be, or, if that isnt going to happen, to raise issues that many of us believe have been completely ignored over the past couple of decades, even if that requires a third, or fourth party. I personally have never been able to fathom the intensity of venom directed toward Clinton. I'm no big fan of his, because I see him as having sold out to the Republicans time and time again. But then that's pretty typical of people raised in alcoholic homes: they are compromisers, people pleasers. But the level of vitriol because the guy apparently lied about having an affair, which was no one's business in the first place, has always been completely lost on me. He did what 98% of guys all do in his place. He tried to protect his reputation; tried to protect his family from gossip. So big deal. Now minions of self-righteous, sanctimonious judges rush to the fore to proclaim him the most disgusting president ever to hold the presidency. Amazing how pure and holy they must be. From my humble observance, I have never seen a bunch of sorer losers than the Republican party has displayed itself to be over the past eight years. From the moment they lost the election in '92, they have spent more energy trying to destroy Clinton than they have on anything else. Watching the myriad fruitless and ceaseless investigations of this and that, to the constant put-downs and blockades of almost anything this administration has tried to accomplish, has made me stand embarrassed and amazed; not at the seemingly tasteless shenanigans of a possibly oversexed president, but at a congress and, to a lesser degree, at a populace, who imagines that these silly departures are of more import than the continued corporate degradation of the environment; the fact that one quarter of our children live in poverty; that most of our people do not vote; that we are the most violent western culture on the globe; that our 'food' is not fit to eat; etc. etc....... But yet I blather.......blessings and love to all........ Earthmama

-- Earthmama (, October 30, 2000.

RIght on Earthmama! all the money spent to investigate the Clintons whas a HUGE republican boondogle. so much for spending the taxpayer's dollars wisely. Me i'm for Ralph. here in Oregon it's hysterical Gore's cronies are fouling their undies. bush, gore, all the same to me. i vote ralph for the earth, libertarians for the state offices because they see through the bullshit of drug prohibition. and oregon has 26 initiatives on the ballot... we have mail-in elections here. voting and stdying the "pamphlet" was an all night process!

-- juno redleaf (, October 30, 2000.

Yea Earthmama!!! If its true for you say it! I'm also perplexed at the 8 year hate fest against the Clintons. 60 million bucks of tax payers money to try to destroy a president? Also their is a bunch of great greens and liberals on the forum. We finally have a pretty good balance I think. Anne, of course you have a good point but as Sheepish says I'm afraid to wake up the morning after the election only to find out Dubya won by a hair! Yuck!.....Kirk

-- Kirk Davis (, October 30, 2000.

Blather away Earthmomma, you should be posting alot more, perhaps you could drowned out some of the more holy people than you and I. It is not enough for them to just vote Republican but if you don't vote for the favored son Bush, you are the liberal devil reincarnated :) I also love Ralph, though my vote for Ross Perrot was more than likly my last attempt to help the other parties. I would just hate for Texas good ole boy Bush to win because I had wasted my vote on someone else. Vicki

-- Vicki McGaugh TX (, October 30, 2000.

Right on earthmama! I'd love to vote for Ralph but Wisc appears to be an important state in this election and I'd hate to see GW win the election. I'm not thrilled about the dem candidate but any other vote is a vote for GW.

I agree with your comments about Clinton. The fact is that politics is about compromise and he's had to live with a republican congress his whole term. I remember when Clinton won the election in 92. C- Span was taking comments from the Republican leadership. Bob Dole was on camera and he was blinking at a furious rate, indicating to me at least, that he was in shock. I called him blinky Dole after that because it was so pronounced.

I'm absolutely convinced GW is a lightweight and not at all up to the task. I think Gore is smarter and better informed and is more inclined to lean toward renewable energy, pro-active environmental policies and he did say he would sign McCain-Feingold---a huge step in the right direction imo. You would see none of that with GW.

-- john leake (, October 31, 2000.

Yea, please vote your conscience.. especially if it means you will vote for Nadar. God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, October 31, 2000.

Wendy, as you say: "heh, heh...."

-- sheepish (, October 31, 2000.

Interesting thought to ponder. Suppose Ehud Barak, Yassar Arafat and (fill in the blank: our new president) are meeting in a closed door session to discuss one last chance for peace in the Mideast. Because of trust issues, no one else is allowed into the room, nor are electronic communications, nor any other communications permitted because of security. They have one hour to resolve the conflict.

Who do you want to represent the United States in that room? (No VPs, advisors, wives, or crib notes.)

-- sheepish (, October 31, 2000.

It's simple for me really. No one canidate will do what you want. That is why congressional votes are so importaint. But I don't want to loose what has been gained on the environment to date. If Bush gets in then the big business people will rape whats left in the next 4 years. I also happen to think government workers are needed and are at a critical low in some places. Without them there are no services to have. But so far the Dems have done a good job. Hate to see it all be lost.

-- Nick (, October 31, 2000.

I'm with Kirk. The Environment is always the most inportant factor in who I choose to vote for, followed by a woman's right to Choice. Nader is closest to my opinion on these issues, but there is no way he can win so I will vote for my second choice, Gore. I also think Gore would handle things better in time of war than Nader would. Bush will destroy many of the good environmental accomplishments of recent years. I grieve for the Earth every day. If Bush wins the grieving will no doubt increase daily.

-- debra in ks (, October 31, 2000.

Let us not forget the now infamous question, "Who is president of France?" asked of GW. He makes DQ look intelligent. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, October 31, 2000.

I wanted to vote for Alan Keyes, but I guess he has resigned now, so he is not even a write in. Probably won't vote at all.

-- Rebekah (, October 31, 2000.

Aw Sheepish, you blew my cover....just trying to be helpful! he-he! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, October 31, 2000.

Hey: Did anyone hear the rumor that if elected Gore would consider Nader for atty general?

-- john leake (, November 01, 2000.

Ugh! The worst of both worlds.....liberal and more liberal! I shudder at the mere thought! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, November 01, 2000.

"I am not concerned with who you vote for as much as why...please be brief."

Assuming you are referring to just federal elections...

The purpose of government is to secure inalienable rights. The first step then is to sort out those who run primarily on platforms of imaginary rights, judicially created rights, and group rights. Disregard these candidates and consider those remaining. Compare their positions to those of the Framers. You will most likely only be left with one candidate who closely matches these same principles. That one gets the vote.

-- William in WI (, November 01, 2000.


Accordint to Jucicial Watch...

"In todayBs New York Times column BThe Great Mentioning,B William Safire, claims, from usually reliable inside information, ...[that] Vice President Al Gore is predicted to choose Clinton-Gore scandal figure Jack Quinn, former White House Counsel...Jack Quinn, who was a participant, in Judicial WatchBs opinion, in the attempted cover-up of many Clinton-Gore scandals during his tenure as White House Counsel. In addition, he has been sued by Judicial Watch client, former FBI Special Agent Dennis Sculimbrene, who alleged violations of the Ku Klux Klan Act. Sculimbrene was the supervisor of former FBI Special Agent Gary Aldrich, who was told by another White House Counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, that Hillary Clinton hired Craig Livingstone in the FBI scandal matter. When this news broke, Quinn and others, such as Lanny Davis, tried to smear Sculimbrene by allegedly publishing false information in the media."

-- William in WI (, November 01, 2000.

Breaking news:

"Due to an anticipated voter turnout much larger than originally anticipated, the polling facilities may not be able to handle the load all at once.

Therefore, Republicans are requested to vote on Tuesday, November 7, and Democrats on Wednesday, November 8. Please pass this message along and help us to make sure that nobody gets left out." :)

-- Todd Osborn (, November 01, 2000.

William, I purposely did not imply how I was voting myself to avoid leaning the respondents one way or the other, when folks hear I'm a Libertarian they get kind of defensive, and I don't get an honest answer. I really fail to grasp sometimes the reason folks find change so hard to initiate, this would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, November 01, 2000.

I usually vote as an independent, voting for the person who most closely represents my views. I have a hard time believing any candidate, especially with candidates who are promising everything to everyone. This year I am afraid it will be Bush as he is the closest to the one who says We have enough government. I am not fond of his stance on environment or women's issues, but can't stand government intrusion even more. Seems like the demos want to stick their noses into everything, republicans want to grow business, and third parties just have a hard time getting heard.

wish i could find a candidate who would promise to pack up the government tents and take them back home.

-- Cindy Lawson (, November 01, 2000.

Cindy, I believe that is the foundation of the Libertarian partys basic philosophy. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, November 02, 2000.

Just as an overall view, a quote from one of our Poppas....

"A country cannot be both ignorant and free."

-- Doreen (, November 02, 2000.

Doreen, Happy that you're back, I hope you accomplished your goals; I will not give up trying to convince folks of the need for change in political leadership in this country, even after the voting booths shut down next week. Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, November 02, 2000.

I really don't think 60 million dollars for investigating the president isn't to bad when you consider the other side of the aisle spent 42 million dollars to investigate Col. North. gail

-- gail missouri ozarks (, November 02, 2000.

Interesting. So you equate in importance a threat to the security of our nation with whether or not the Pres was gettin a little on the side?

-- Earthmama (, November 03, 2000.

I am not much of a Bush fan, but the DUI thing wouldn't sway me either way, I figure it's just a last minute desperate attempt by the Gore guys to discredit Junior. I am a died in the wool environmentalist and at one time kinda liked Egore, however, when I heard him on Larry King a few months back, talking about the little Cuban boy, Elion, he made absolutely no sense in what he was saying, and he can't seem to say the same thing two times in a row. Up until lately I figured I would just close my eyes and pull a lever, but I have decided to vote for Nader. I think he has always done a good job as an advocate for consumers, I like what he has to say about the environment and women's rights. I have Libertarian leanings, but don't care for their current candidate. I feel good about going outside the box and going for someone who is close to standing for what I believe in, even if he doesn't have a chance of winning.

Just my two cents!



-- Judy Murray (, November 03, 2000.

Bravo, Judy, any vote for other than R. and D. is to be a vote for change, thanks for thinking outside the box! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, November 03, 2000.


North was never a security threat nor involved in suspicion of a threat to national security. I will have to assume that you are intentionally ignoring the sale of nuclear secrets and missle guidance technology to the Chinese by Clinton and Gore. That is a threat to national security.

It doesnt matter how long you repeat the "it was only about sex" thing. Most of us Know better. It was about the string of crimes committed. Clinton will go down in history as one of the worst presidents ever despite the present liberal spin.

Clinton always said that he wanted a legacy. Well he made one.

Treason, murder, blackmail, hard core drug use, coverups of disease infected blood sales and more. Remember that Gore was involved in everyone of Clintons crimes except the rapes that the Slickster is accused of. Maybe there's a slogan in there...

GORE 2000: At least Im not a rapist.

-- William in WI (, November 03, 2000.

Wow, william, I'd hate to have you on my jury! The 'string of crimes' are most likely a figment of overactive imaginations, and once again, the fact that the man was found guilty of none of these,(except lying about an affair) even after YEARS of ruthless investigations, seems to matter not a whit to some people. So be it. Very cold indeed.

-- Earthmama (, November 03, 2000.

Earthmamma, remember, He lied under oath. that IS a crime, no matter if you are president, or you or me. There is no doubt he is guilty of that! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, November 03, 2000.

William, I'd be thrilled if you were on my jury.....if I was innocent. I would tremble in fear......if I was guilty!! God Bless! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, November 04, 2000.

Wife and I voted yesterday. I voted for Bush for 3 basic reasons- I believe abortion is murder, gun control is unconstitutional, and if God asks for a tithe (10%) the gummint(s) don't need any more. Bush won't do anything about the last, will not significantly damage the middle, and can't do anything about the first. Gore would further the first, totally trash the second, and take as much as possible on the last. Third Party? Not in a national election, until they build their base at the local and state level. We will lose this country before that happens because none of them have the capacity to think that far ahead. And if one comes along that does think that far ahead, his idiot followers will demand 100% change immediately and trash any chance of long term change. Nader has SOME good ideas, but he would plunge the country into a depression if they were attempted over the course of even 15 - 30 years. A depression such as we had in the '30s would probably result in the total collapse of our society- too many of us want too much and we want it yesterday. I think things would get pretty violent, especially in the cities. I voted Libertarian in my state elections. Wish they had a chance of winning. We have nothing but Dems at the local level. None of them believe in the national party line as they are all very conservative. Sort of funny seeing the local big wheel Dems all voting for Bush, and our Rep. Senator!

-- Skip Barnes (, November 04, 2000.

Why do I vote the way I do? Good guestion. I don't like to be manipulated. I also like my leaders to handle issues in a straight- forward manner. I love freedom and therefore am suspicious of any regulation of any sort

It's sad but true, we need to be governed. We also need a strong Fed. Gov. to ensure our nation stays together. (I'm a states rights man by the way) I just realize the obvious and that is most people do what they think is best for them, but it always leaves others feeling slighted. Since I acknowledge that, Libertarians are out of the guestion. Their idea of no gov. regulation is a "fools dream". I'm sure not all libertarians think this way but thats the impression the party gives me.

Democrats scare the hell out of me. The national media promotes the Democrats and that alone should make anyone think!!! Look how many people believe the biggest issue this election is about "the right to choose" and who will appoint Fed. judges to secure this "right". In reality neither Bush or Gore will do this.

Gores statement in the second debate that "I will never infringe on hunters or sportsmen right to bear arms". And"I do believe all handgun owners should have a Fed. photo I.D." Should scare any american.

This leaves me to vote for Bush, who is the closest to my ideals and I can only hope he'll live up to my expectations.

-- Mark M (, November 04, 2000.

Well ya'll seem to be beating up on Governor Bush. I happen to be voting for him. He may not be too sophisticated but heck I get tired of getting the shaft from smooth talking sophisticated politicians. I lived in Texas during Mr Bush's term as governor and I like him. There were several times I'd read something in the paper that he voted for or against and I'd think to myself that makes sense. A lot of his 'simple' seeming is this blasted Texas accent. You can be a genius and this accent will make you sound like a dunce. He is against abortion, supports homeschooling, a person making their own decisions and he's tough on crime. Gore is opposite. Some of the other parties have some good points and ideas but as everyone knows they don't have a snowballs chance in a really warm place of winning. I'm not against some other parties forming and giving us some choice (not to mention making the career politians nervous)but I'm not gonna give a third party my vote just to get them on their feet....nothing is worth getting Gore elected.

-- Amanda S (, November 04, 2000.

We are seriously thinking about voting for Ralph Nader in this election. I understand what people say about its only throwing your vote away, but it's my vote !! I think we have to seriously start thinking about a third strong party in America. Both republican and democrate parties are not really in touch with the rest of us "normal" people. Maybe in the next few years things will change if a third party gets a strong foothold in this country. I would like to think that by the time my grandchildren can vote they would have more than just two parties to consider. Ralph Nader has been in Washington for 35 years now and never a whisper of a scandal about him. That alone is enough to vote for him. Guess bottom line is....just get out there on Tuesday and vote !!!

-- Helena Di Maio (, November 04, 2000.

Bravo, Helena for thinking outside the box, and being brave enough to try to make a change! Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, November 05, 2000.

Mark M., please, please visit the Libertarian party's website, , your conception of their platform is incorrect, they do not desire no government regs, simply that any such regulation not violate the Constitution. Their main purpose is to restore the Constitution to it's rightfull position of power in both Federal, State, and local goverments. Period. Nothing more. Respectfully, Annie in SE OH.

-- Annie Miller (, November 05, 2000.

Sixty-one percent (61%) of the undecided voters in this country are women. We'll see....

-- sheepish (, November 05, 2000.

That figures! Wendy

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (, November 06, 2000.

Annie, I will take your advice and check out the Libertarians further. I know several people who I respect who like what they see in the Libertarian Party so maybe it's time for me to take another look. However it's too late to change my mind in this election. Don't forget to vote tomorrow!

-- Mark M (, November 06, 2000.

My dear husband, who voted already for Nader, voted almost exclusively Libertarian for the other choices. Just thought I would share. For me, it's a mixed bag of the usual: Dems, Reps, and various 3rd party.

For me: "It's the economy, stupid."

CLINTON: Bathwater

GORE: Baby

NADER: Drain in the bassinette ;)

-- sheepish (, November 06, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ