On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:50:31 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
The same reason I said Bush, twice - he is the best in the (practical)
field of two, no more, no less.

gawd, I hope you are referring to Bush as in GHW, as I am astounded that
anyone of sound mind could look back on the second vote for George W as
anything based upon good sense.

Nope, I mean Bush, the younger, and I still think he is/was a better
choice than Kerry was/would have been. But once election day is past,
it's a little too late to get a do-over anyway, so I don't look with
hindsight at what/who "might have happened" as anything more than a
point of rhetorical discussion. I know you know this, but for others,
the idea that, IMO, Bush was a better choice out of a field of two
doesn't translate into my being a "Bush supporter" in general.

TC,
R



seriously, IMO, not much "change" can occur if the vote is yet another
50.01% versus 49.99% squeaker regardless of who actually "wins."

and this much I do agree with. Somewhere along the way, something of a
consensus has to be built, or the nation will continue to blunder forward,
to the detriment of us all.

Tom