greenspun.com : LUSENET : Countryside : One Thread

Jay asked me this question and I had to answer not to my knowledge. Perhaps someone knows. "Has any other (major party) presidential candidate not carried their home state?" To my recollection even in a wipe-out they carried their home state.

For many years Gore will wake up at night and say to himself, "If I had only carried Tennessee."

Interesting situation in the Senate in that there will be no majority party. This affects who becomes the chairman of committees and the make-up of that committee. Are they going to alternate committees? 50-50 split of members?

From news reports, it appears Lieberman is losing, rather than gaining, status from this.

This could well drag on beyond the 12th.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 06, 2000


Okay, Ken, I'm hoping you were one of those that didn't mind seeing the humor in some of the titles here. What "threat" did you have in mind? ;-)

-- Joy Froelich (dragnfly@chorus.net), December 06, 2000.

Will Florida challange the US Supreme Court again? Last week two questions were before the Federal Supreme Court. The first was whether the Florida Supreme Court could change the state's procedures for appointing electors after the election had been held. The second was whether the Florida court had changed the way in which electors are to be appointed. An affirmative answer to either question would mean that federal constitutional and statutory requirements had been violated. The rules for selection have to be in place before the election and the legislature, not the courts, must decide the manner of designating electors. This is why the US Supremes sent it back asking for Floridia's reasoning.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 06, 2000.

It wasn't really a question, was it? Didn't the High Court send a statement to FL Courts and Lawyers? Something like, "Duh? Keep It Simple Stupid"!!

On the dark side, the real Y2K is only a few days away and it looks like Governor Bush gets the hit. Gored Gore will preen like a rooster in the barnyard,... I told you so ... I have always said. ..if your vote was counted etc.. in my opinnon. And this will be used to change the electorial voting system..After all I (Mr. Gore) won the election, I got the most votes.

Note: A popular vote must be won by a two-thirds (2/3) majority or we will have a worse problem than now. And that is almost impossible!

I think we will have four years of none stop barnyard slop.

At 70 years of age my light is a little dim. However, if a presidential candidate cannot carry their home state; All the lights and bells come on and one has to pay attention!

-- JR (jr3star@earthlink.net), December 06, 2000.

Today..CNN on-line reports

(Gore, looking chipper enough to belie the effects of the legal battering he has endured in the last 24 hours, told a gathering of reporters outside the White House on Tuesday afternoon that he still thought he had a "50-50" chance of prevailing in Florida, with the state Supreme Court braced to consider two cases that could well determine who finally claims the Sunshine State's 25 electoral votes.)

My oppinon: If so why, didn't he try a coin toss of heads I lose and tails I win...Then no, I have heads! that's not right. We must have the best of two out of three... Now really, I think every toss must be counted but not the first two. We must throw those out..Mr Daly give me a two headed coin. Well gee, I can't go back to Tennesse, Oh golly gee

-- Dan (triquest@about.com), December 06, 2000.

I think it's kinda funny that al gore has been hollerin' that every vote must be counted but they want to throw out 15,000 votes in Seminole County because a voting official, not voters, put a number on the corner of the ballots.

I'm so sick of hearing gore whine every time I turn on the TV. I've completely stopped watching network news programs.

-- Joe (jcole@apha.com), December 06, 2000.

The recount thing is trickling down to local races. A republican judical candidate in Madison County , Alabama (Huntsville area) is requesting a recount of county voters due to irregularities by poll workers. Can't help but believe the Florida events set the stage for it.

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), December 06, 2000.

Wednesday December 6 1:09 PM ET Republican Philanthropist Pays Pro-Gore Legal Bills

SAN JOSE, Calif. (Reuters) - A high-tech philanthropist -- and registered Republican -- has undertaken to help supporters of Democratic candidate Al Gore (news - web sites) pay some of the mounting Florida legal bills.

Steve Kirsch, who founded Infoseek and has become one of Silicon Valley's most aggressive philanthropists, said he was paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to help pro-Gore forces battling over thousands of absentee votes in two Florida counties.

``I think you can very easily show statistically that Gore won the election, and it is just not right that the actual count does not reflect that,'' Kirsch told Reuters on Wednesday.

``Even under the most extreme assumptions, the people of Florida voted for Gore.''

Although a registered Republican, Kirsch has been a supporter of Gore's bid for the presidency since he met the vice president at a Silicon Valley fund-raiser featuring rock star Elton John.

With recount problems mounting in Florida after the election, Kirsch saw an opportunity to help.

He has thus far wired about $200,000 to Seminole and Martin counties, where Democrats are seeking to throw out some 15,000 absentee ballots in Republican-leaning regions, and has pledged to spend at least another $150,000.

``There were lawyers who were about to drop out of the case because they were not getting paid, they were doing it all pro bono,'' Kirsch said. ``So I'm paying their legal bills.''

Kirsch said he remained hopeful that Gore would eventually prevail in Florida and take the White House -- an unusual wish for a Republican multimillionaire.

``I tend to look at the candidates, I don't vote strictly on party lines by any stretch,'' Kirsch said. ``Their position on the issues is just one thing. It's experience, it's proven track record, overall ability, overall intelligence. I'm very bipartisan in the way I vote.''

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), December 06, 2000.

Why do people consider Gore not carrying Tennessee to be so notable? Sheesh. The guy hasn't associated much with the state for 8 years. Eight years ago I was 40, and besides my waistline, there are a lot of things that have changed since then. If Gore was the current Tennessee senator, I guess I would think it might be important, but he's been off learning whatever Vice Presidents do for a long time now.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 06, 2000.

Gore has not learned anything in the past eight years, he has been to busy inventing stuff.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 06, 2000.

I can't believe you all are still talking about the two jerk off parties in America. I'm so glad it was because of my vote, that things are so screwed up. yeaaaaaaaa. who says third party votes are wasted.

P.S. Bumper sticker read: DON'T BLAME ME MY VOTE WASN'T COUNTED Republicans and Democrats SUCK.

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), December 07, 2000.

We have a local guy trying to make a case re: his (legal) position on the ballot here. He's just miffed cause he didn't represent a party and was put in that far right column, as our law clearly states. The winner got almost 13000 of the 16000 votes, this guy got 500.

-- Anne (HT@HM.com), December 07, 2000.

Since it was only the Republican absentee ballot applications that were "remedied", then one could assume that numbers of the NON- Republican applications were not processed in Seminole and Martin Counties as well. That would include Libertarians, Natural Law Party candidates, plus the other assortment of third parties, besides the Democrats. Remember, that these ballot applications prevented those OTHER party absentee voters from being able to have their vote count, too. AND those ballots weren't just for chosing a President. This is not just a Democrat issue in those counties.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 07, 2000.

I am tired of all the court battles, we each should go down to our local court house and hang an attorney up by his .. you know whats.. from the flag pole. The legal system the country is broken, too much money, too many atttorneys or what?

-- rich (pntbeldyk@wirefire.com), December 07, 2000.


Please keep your language civil. There are junior and senior high school students following this thread. Yes, maybe it not something they haven't heard before, but...

Next couple of days should be very interesting.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 07, 2000.


-- tom bonno (tbonno@scctx.com), December 08, 2000.

As I wait for the courts to rule in the Seminole and Martin cases, I wonder how this is even an issue. I've followed alot of the trial and it seems the main issue is that under existing law, pertaining to requesting absentee ballots, only the applicant can put their voter ID number on the form. According to both sides, Democrat applications were sent to people with the number already entered on the form. This was done by the printer but I'm not sure where they got the information. The Rebulican ballots had their numbers "accidently" omitted by the printer. The counties ended up with alot of Republican ballots that did not have the required number and certain officials allowed Republican party members to put the numbers on the application. Now maybe I'm missing something here but if the law says that only the voter can put the number on the application then the Democrats are just as guilty since their applications had the number entered by someone other than the applicant. I really think this is a non-issue since both parties were just trying to make sure their members would get a ballot. I do find this case ironic since up until now the Democrat mantra has been to make sure "Every vote counts"

In regard to the question of a canidate not carrying their home state. I can't think of anyone else who didn't. In 1984 Dem. nominee Walter Mondale carried his state of Minn. and Ronald Reagan carried the other 49!! The reason Gore didn't carry his state is simple. When he first came to power as a Sen. from Tenn. he took certain stands on issues that reflected his constituants. Once he became VP he changed his position on these, proving to the good people in Tenn. that he had lied to them and was only pretending to represent them to obtain power. This is very simular to the current events in Fla. where he is now concerned about "disenfranchised voters" "minorites" and making sure that EVERY vote counts. He just wants to win and doesn't really care how it happens.

-- Mark M in NC (MagicMark@aol.com), December 08, 2000.

Saw today where the judges ruled that the absentee ballots in the two counties shall count. The reason is "The irregularities did not alter the will and intent of the voter casting the ballot." Looks like the "let every vote count" mantra has benifited the Republicans today. Thanks Al.

-- Jay Blair in N. AL (jayblair678@yahoo.com), December 08, 2000.

It was 8th and 80 and Al just threw a 78-yard pass.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 08, 2000.

I have been lurking on the political chat since shortly after the election. I said a month ago that al would somehow steal this. If he pulls this off, the winning vote he needed came from a Fla. Supreme Court judge.

This whole thing is pretty amazing if you stop and think about it. God places these men in these positions. I have to keep reminding myself of that. I'm afraid God is giving us the kinds of leaders we deserve,(Clinton) not what we need. John

-- John in S IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), December 08, 2000.

So far so good as far as I'm concerned. Fla. supreme court sided with Gore on the latest issue and ordered a recount of ALL undervotes thruout the state. What could be more fair?

As far as the election being stolen, methinks if Gore prevails after the inevitable appeals, it will be a theft attempt aborted.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), December 08, 2000.

Mark, you are so right. Gore as a Senator from Tennessee was not the same as Gore as Vice President. He was against abortion, talked to tobacco farmers about how he used to work tobacco, etc... But I don't honestly know if back then, if that was the real Al Gore or if the one we see nowadays is. Say anything for a vote? Yep. Scary. He did not carry this State for those reasons and also for the reason that alot of people here, feel he is not really a Tennessean and never really was. I have heard people ask how Tennesse could turn their back on him. My response would be, what has he done for us? We are definately not on the top of the list in education, health care, rehab programs for the disabled, standard of living, AND the enviroment. nuff said.

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), December 08, 2000.

Hey Ken, Got any hunches on what the U.S. Supreme Court will do? This whole deal is getting real interesting, huh? I've watched so many court trials on tv lately, I feel like I could join the legal team!!! :)

-- Annie (mistletoe@earthlink.net), December 08, 2000.

I wonder , since they are counting again all the votes. If Mr. Nader will pick up some more votes? Heck if they recount every state then they'll probably have their 5%.

I never knew how Ironic the whole system is. That no matter which way you turn in politics you'll meet bro Joe, who is in charge of this court or bro john who'll over throw their verdict when it gets to his court. The good old Bubba's still at it.

-- hillbilly (internethillbilly@hotmail.com), December 09, 2000.

I think it's great that all the undervotes, or whatever they are calling them, are to be counted in ALL the counties in Florida. That should be good news for the Bush fans, too, as they will likely pick up more votes in those counties that voted Republican for the most part.

If we agree that the votes from the military should count, and the interestingly-processed absentee ballots from Seminole and Martin counties should count, it stands to reason that these other ballots should count too.

Now we have the courts overseeing this process and they have a need to get it done. I sincerely hope that means getting the criteria selected and getting this taken care of post-haste. Should have been done weeks ago, imho. What a circus...

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 09, 2000.

U.S. Supreme Court Stpos Recounts!! Oh No o o o o o o !!! Now what? I can't take much more of this. I'm gonna have a heart attack. This is better than any movie anyway.

Don't take my "steal the election" Too seriously. I don't really care to much at this point. John

-- John in S IN (JSMENGEL@HOTMAIL.COM), December 09, 2000.

Ken S. you posted, "It was 8th and 80 and Al just threw a 78-yard pass."

Looks like the backfield judge just ruled an ineligible receiver downfield.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 09, 2000.

sheepish, my understanding of an "undervote" is a ballot with votes for some or all the other candidates, BUT NOT for the presidential electors. They are trying to determine intent AS IF YOU HAD VOTED. What ever happened to just not voting for either candidate.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 09, 2000.

Good points. I must say the decision to stay (the execution? LOL) of the vote counts really blew me away! I feel like Alice in Wonderland and keep seeing all these players that look like cards everywhere.

All I want is for the will of the people (it doesn't seem too hard for me to understand, but apparently it is expressed in myriad ways these days!) to be accounted for. I don't care (well, I do, but not incredibly much) who gets the White House. I am getting really queasy about how we are deciding!!

Hope you are having a pleasant weekend anyway! I was putting up my tree when I heard the Supremes doing their latest hit. We are supposed to get some snow tonight, and my thoughts have turned more to critters and Christmas (and a little less to crap....)

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 09, 2000.


Excellent analogy. This is now twice in about a week the U.S. Supreme Court has set aside the FL Supreme Court on this matter. Think they are sending a message?

OK, I reacted to the latest FL Supreme Court ruling about like I did to the OJ verdict. What!!! How could you??? Then I resigned myself to a county-by-county recount of under votes. Only real thing which bothered me about it was the standard. "The clear intent of the voter" can be interpreted by 100 people 100 different ways. In fact, one observer who was at the Miami-Dade in-county recount said it sure seemed like a far higher percentage were ending up in the no- vote box.

I'm about at the point to where I would not question another Florida election, restricted to those who voted on November 7th. Absolutely no, repeat no, political advertising, appearances or anything else until then. Include military and overseas ballots also. I know that would be unconstitutional, but...

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 09, 2000.

On the judge(s)using a magnifying glass to examine ballots. Somewhere I read if it requires a statistical analysis to prove a result, it isn't worth proving.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 09, 2000.

I read your last post about statistics and could feel another saying just bursting to get out.

Figures don't lie, but lairs' figure.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 09, 2000.


My analogy apparently bombed. What I meant was if someone has to use a magnifying glass to try to determine voter intent, it isn't a clearly intentional vote on the voter's part.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 09, 2000.

Well, the scary thing seem to be that if a state supreme court can change the rules or procedures after an election, that have been used in countless previous elections, then our system of government is in jeopardy. In future elections losers will cite the Flordia precedent to change the way results are tabulated to try to turn the elections to their favor. No longer will the electors votes be most important, but only the recounts and procedural changes. It would then become a system in which the candidate with the best lawyers and most funds would end up in office. Pretty much the same way our legal system works now in other areas. No, I think our only hope is for the US Supreme Court to reaffirm that election laws and procedures are the domain of the legislatures. Thanks, Ed

-- Ed Johnson (star_lake@yahoo.com), December 09, 2000.

Ken, I agree with your statement "if someone has to use a magnifying glass to try to determine voter intent, it isn't a clearly intentional vote on the voter's part." I would venture it probably is more the "judges" vote. Isn't this exactly what Shakespeare warned about over 500 years ago. I my view, the best thing we could do in this country is absolutely prohibit anyone with a law degree from being an office holder and that includes elected Judges. The founders of this country had the right idea, but somehow we have drifted far away from their ideas.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 10, 2000.

I just heard on C-Span that the guy with the magnifying glass was a republican judge panning for the camera, but in essence I generally agree with the sentiment expressed above by Ken and others.

I'm hoping the Supremes will reach a compromise to arrive at a unanimous decision. It would enable them to at least appear unbiased and not politically motivated in their decision making.

To me an equitable decision might be something like "count all the undervotes in the state and here are the standards you will use to determine the count." That way neither Bush or Gore wins all that they want and such a decision would recognize the legitimacy of each point of view and validate the objections of each side of the contest.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), December 10, 2000.

I'm with John-I'm disappointed in both candidates and don't care who wins now.Either will be an ineffective president,not necessarily a bad thing.Neither will have my support ,but I didn't like either of them very much,to begin with,so it didn't take too long for me to get to that point.

Let's just get it over with.

-- sharon wt (wildflower@ekyol.com), December 10, 2000.


-- hk john (ghubbar@bellsouth.net.), December 10, 2000.

Sharon makes a good point that having an ineffective president is not necessarily a bad thing. I was thinking about this while at work last night. If we have a government that for the next four years accomplishes absolutely nothing, will that hurt us? Maybe it will be for the best -- this may be God's way of protecting us from more and more rules and regulations. The only danger I can see (from my admittedly brief consideration of the subject) is that with a weak government we might be in more danger from outside our borders. But the biggest threat right now is from within.

-- Kathleen Sanderson (stonycft@worldpath.net), December 10, 2000.

Weak leaders tend to stir up trouble outside the country's borders to divert local attention. The problem is you never know in todays technological world what the surprise response might be - nuclear or biological.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 10, 2000.

Gore's Last Harrah:

Interesting analysis of Gore's political future in today's paper. Basically said if he cannot prevail through the courts, this will be his last feasible attempt at the Presidency.

Among reasons cited: He has no power base and largely won the nomination on being Vice President. He couldn't even win his home state. There are about a dozen strong contenders for 2004, including Hillary, who would not defer to his position. These include former and current senators (including Lieberman), representatives (including Dick Gephardt) and governors. He basically ran neck to neck with a governor (with no federal experience) whose only claim to fame is being the son of a former president. He was considered an accomplished debater, but he went into the three debates with Bush five points ahead and came out even, if not a little behind. He will have great difficulty in keeping his name before the America public for the next three years. How many speeches can he give saying he would have won it all votes had been counted.

On the U.S. Supreme Court hearing later this morning, most observers say he will have to draw a royal flush. Among others surely the Justices have to be concerned about setting a presidence for other state elections. Unless the court changes the Constitution, he is out of time.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 11, 2000.

Personally, I think there is going to be a raft of Democratic candidates lining up to run for Prez in 2004. I don't think we'll have to worry about only having to pick someone like Al Gore. Now that we have finally awakened the sleeping electorate, I think we may actually have awakened some more candidates, too. I sure hope so.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 11, 2000.

sheepish, I truly hope you are correct in having "awakened the sleeping electorate --- and --- awakened some more candidates" Several viable candidates to choose from with an energized electorate; what more could anyone want for our republic.

-- JLS in NW AZ (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), December 11, 2000.

Just a quick note: how much money would it take to get a couple of electors to change their minds? Would this amount of money amount to a hill of beans compared to the legal fees both candidates have already accrued?


-- JOJ (jumpoff@echoweb.net), December 11, 2000.

JOJ, Good point. There is a guy out there right now who is trying to do what you point out. I forget his name at the moment(he ran Mondale's campaign), but saw him on a talk show and he made no bones about what he is trying to do. It would only take 3 and all the BS in Florida would be moot.

Joesph Farrah had an editorial about this very topic Saturday at Worldnetdaily.com He reminded of the impeachment process. Look what they did to the speaker of the house, Livingston? (I think). That one event took what starch there was out of the Senate. Having proven they are not above airing out someones dirty laundry, it may not be all that hard to "convince" 3 electors to toss their votes to al.

Something to think about........ John

-- John in S. IN (jsmengel@hotmail.com), December 11, 2000.

from what you know of biblical history, do you think Jesus would have taken His state?

-- Earthmama (earthmama48@yahoo.com), December 11, 2000.


Jesus would have basically been a third-part candidate and it seems little consulation for Bucannon, Brown, or Nadar.

-- Ken S. in WC TN (scharabo@aol.com), December 12, 2000.

I guess I'll have to jump in, albeit reluctantly. I am a Libertarian, which I suggest many of you may become in future times. I believe that the individual is responsible for the fortunes of the individual. Can you say "homesteader"?? I feel that government intervention should be restricted to those arenas where we NEED a government, whether local, state, or federal (all non-caps intended!). National defense, roads, commerece, matters of state, national law enforcement (I am NOT talking the SS of the BATF here), ambassadors, coinage (treasury), et al are legitimate responsibilities of a Federal Gov't. However, we do still have the (largely ignored) 10th Amendment, and a plethora of law limiting the Federal Gov't. As it should be! Having said that, I USUALLY vote Republican, since that is the major party most likely to reflect my beliefs. Make no mistake, the "democrats" are really Socialists, and the more rabid among them are actually Communists, and here I include Comrade Hillary and Comrade Schumer, the bane(s) of the formerly great state of NY. Today's Republicans are yesteryear's Democrats! What is an adherent of the Constitution to do? Libertarianism is my best bet today. Where are the 300 people in the United States who have actually READ the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence? Bill of Rights? And the Federalist Papers? Forgetit! Who among you are ready for another Revolution? Pray with me that we never have to find out! The Meek Maineiac!

-- Brad (homefixer@SacoRiver.net), December 12, 2000.

Brad, there are a number of people out here that would be inclined to consider a Libertarian perspective. Personally, however, every time I hear a Libertarian slam the Democrats, bad-mouth the President and his wife, etc., I just completely turn off. There are a number of merits to the Libertarian platform. My husband voted for several candidates this past November. We discussed it a lot.

Maybe it's not the Libertarian style, but I think you might get more people to take the party seriously if it didn't appear to condemn everyone who isn't smitten with conservatism. The fact that the individual is responsible for himself/herself rings strongly in the minds and hearts of a few liberals, too (I know, you don't believe me!) If you are seriously interested in "converting the heathen" then perhaps extending a warm welcome would be a more effective approach. Otherwise you are just preaching to the choir.

Just my $.02.

From a gun-owning, states-rights supporting fan of the Constitution, a liberal.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 12, 2000.

Brad, don't do it!!!! LOL! (Extend your hand, that is)

That is the problem with the republican party. We spend way too much time "wooing" the enemy, so to speak. Forget the socalist/liberal democrats, they are either too commited to socialism, ignornant of our form of government or "gimme's". I would much rather the republican party "woo" the libertarians and others. Yes, I know this sounds "soooo mean", but I am past the point of caring, the truth hurts...ouch, ouch, ouch!! If this was a foreign enemy invading these words would seem reasonable, but as it is domestic, we don't seem to recognize that the enemy is destroying our way of life and changing our form of government. So I and others sound like we're whacko's - right wing, that is. (And proud of it, I must say.)

This is my last "go round" with the republicans. If they don't take a stand and stand on "honor, truth, constitutional law, way less government, etc...I'm outta' there. If I here Bush's people call this a "Democracy" one more time, I'm gonna scream!!! Argh....why do they always accomodate the ignorant among us?!! Anyway, for what it's worth, there you have it.

Oh, and have a nice day .

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), December 12, 2000.

Wendy, you know I thought about specifically answering your post. But I think you really stepped right out (in) it. I think you made your point very well. But to a thoughtful person, you also made mine (actually several of them, from previous posts.) Thank you.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 13, 2000.

Yes Sheepish, that WAS my point/points. Glad it made it through.

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), December 13, 2000.

Hi Wendy,

I can't tell if I am coming across as snotty these days, but I hope it didn't seem like it. We have a bunch of personal stuff going on here, and a lot of stress (health, money, fighting city hall, etc.)so I'm probably a little reactive. If so, I can just be "snappish" for a few days, and not "sheepish", and post a warning ahead of my commentary.

I know your day is totally independent of my good wishes, but I hope you have a good one. And, Bush looks like he's in the White House, so you should be in a celebratory mood! (see, I had to tie this in to being on topic...!)

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), December 13, 2000.

Hey Sheepish, thank you for the "good wishes". I am very sorry to hear of the problems you are having. I hope things get better for you and your family soon.

And yes, I am in a celebratory mood, it is good. Very good. Athough I must admit I am holding off from the full-scale celebration until I see/hear the words from gore's own lips......we shall see.

BTW, just for the record - Keyes was my man, if I'd had my way. Oh well. W1!

-- Wendy@GraceAcres (wjl7@hotmail.com), December 13, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ