> Let's face it; Beat Bush is the number one agenda among Democrats.

Unfortunately, that's the way American politics have gone. When I was first able to vote, I was looking forward to voting so I could put my favored candidate in the big chair. After voting a few times, I've come to realize in a society with two political parties that dominate the elections, people don't vote for a candidate. They vote against the other guy.

Recent movements like the Reform Party or the Green Party on the federal level (and even the Libertarian Party on the state and local levels) were attempts to break up the two-party system. The largest obstacle these third parties have to overcome is getting an equal share of the federal campaign monies and recognition. I'm paraphrasing from memory here, but once a political party gains 5% of the popular vote in a federal election, they are eligible to have the same amount of federal money that goes towards the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. But more importantly, the third party candidate would take part in televised presidential debates.

That's what the people who voted for Nader were trying to do last election, what the people who voted for Perot did last decade, and the people who voted for Anderson the decade prior.

End of ramble. Blue elf needs food, badly.

-F "ooo. check out the old school USEnet way I changed the subject line" P