...

> Now I'm confused. If Bush doesn't attempt to get legislation passed that > conforms with the agenda that he based his campaign on, then he would be like
> Clinton-governing by polling data or reactions to trial balloons. If Harry
> Brown had won the election, I'm sure you would hope he would push his agenda
> on behalf of the people who voted for him. That too would be partisan
> politics.

My problem with the politicians of both of the major parties is NOT that they attempt to pass legislation consistent with their campaign promises (though all too often, the DON'T do that), but the nature of the promises and the process by which those promises are made and/or carried out. All too often (most of the time), legislation is based on what's good for the party, what's good for those in power and what's good for keeping them in power, not what's good for the people. And, the way they spend our money (usually for the same set of purposes) is enough to make me ill.

> Please give the guy a chance before making cynical statements like Bush
> morphed into Clinton.

Yeah, that was pretty cynical, wasn't it? You can take it to the bank, though, that I don't stand alone in feeling that way. Perhaps not most, but a lot of people think our current crop of politicians from both major parties are all pretty much worthless. Frankly, I think we'd all be better off if they worked a couple of weeks a year and left us alone the rest of the time.

> I'm sure you'd have a problem if someone were to proclaim the day after you
> take office as president of the CC & GTCC that you just morphed into David
> Sarles without you having a chance to show any differences in your leadership
> qualities, capabilities, or to show positive tangible results due to your
> presence in your elected position.

Actually, they'd have to say David morphed into me to make a correct analogy! <g> But, I'm not going to let you draw me into that discussion. We'll just have to let the club election and the aftermath speak for itself.

----- jim o\-S