[rdb3]

I agree that an unprincipled winner makes losers out of us all. But I don't subscribe to the belief that Dubya is as bad as Clinton-Clinton-Gore. I don't believe we would have had these problems if the Pubs had kept the Senate. It shocks me how most of us on the Right miss just how huge that loss was, and that it was a virtual coup d'etat. The Senate going to RAT hands changed the game completely.

Be that as it may, get the candidates you want in place and use the means available to seat them in office. To me, getting elected is first and foremost. The rest in conjecture. We can rant and rave all we want about how bad the two-party system is, but, if we don't get elected, all else is totally moot.

[Twodees]

The republicans had had the Senate for years. They had done diddly with it, too. In case you've forgotten, it was a GOP majority Senate which acquitted Clinton. Jeffords' jump was predictable and planned. The very last thing the GOP could allow was complete republican control of two branches of the government. When that happens, it's put up or shut up time, and they're terrified of having to do what they've pretended to want to do for the past 20 years.

I didn't say that Bush was as bad as Clinton, but now that you mention it, he isn't any better than Gore. It's apparent to me that we'll never be allowed to get decent candidates into the running under the GOP banner.