Alex-

No, no, you mistake me! I do know the dif. between a Bush and a Newt: newt's got legs. I meant only to point out that Dubya seems to have no difficulty with the machinations, and the agenda, and the "morality"[sic] of DeLay, Gingrich, Helms, D'Amato et.al. plus the reactionary cronies of his Dad he's currently enthusiastically embracing- and that once he can stop blubbering about "compassionate conservatism" (one of the more amusing oxymorons to be coined in a long while) to a gullible electorate that evidently has difficulty remembering what occurred more than a month ago, he'll revert to type- as his political and personal history clearly shows. And in concert with this Gang still in the Congress- and who never said a harsh word about Newt's behavior (too busy with the crucifiction of Clinton) - he'd be able to do some real harm.

Kat-

I was honestly hoping someone else would raise those points so I didn't have to! No such luck, apparently ;-)    I think Gore would 'hit back' except that any time he raises these facts, the Repubs start their hysterical whining about "negative campaigning' and "there he goes again"-- and for some inexplicable reason, a good portion of the electorate backs them up! Pretty Orwellian turn of events when the opposition can succeed in damning you for raising factual issues. Aint that America!- Somethin' to see...

Don't get me wrong, tho- I don't think Gore is any sort of prince, either.Just that he's not poised to do the irreperable harm that Dubya & his handlers are.

Best, Greg