>>><snip>
>>>>The times are ripe for splits, and if you look at the electoral and popular >vote totals from Nov 7, you can see just how easy it is for miniscule voting >shifts to cause many split situations, either way for each candidate, or even >electoral ties...not a good situation, and erodes public faith in our >political system, to have a "loser win."
>>>
>>> I honestly think that if the people actualy UNDERSTOOD our system their faith wouldn't be eroded. But it seems as if our polictal structure is no longer taught in schools. Or if it is, the constant media blattering overrides the learning. I was appalled at the way the media seemed to be stunned by the results on election night.
>>
>>Stunned? Gore started out 16 points behind Bush and did nothing except misspeak ("I invented the Internet") and bumble. It was only because of the constant positive spins for Gore and against Bush by Rather and the rest that Gore was able to come as close as he did. It amazes me that when a President lies about what he did and who it did it to (a teenage employee - talk about CEO exploitation - where is NOW when you need them) it's no big deal, we should focus on a man's personal life. So, when a last minute dirty trick about Bush and a drunk driving charge 25 years ago hits the air waves, suddenly it's very important and should be hashed and rehashed, spun and misspun (What else is he 'lying' about?). Double standards. Don't you just love'm.
>>JLK
>
>And could you please tell us why the Republican controlled Senate voted against impeaching Clinton?

Have you read the book by the lawyer that did much of the behind the scenes investigation? FBI files and Sell out. The Reps are not much different, at the national level, from the Dems. I quit the Rep party four years ago because of their treatment of Alan Keyes at the Alanta "debates". Harry Browne and Ralph Nadar were the two most ethical men running for office.