Conference turris::womannotes-v2

I'm tired of getting the short end of the stick when it comes to marriage,
raising children, etc.  I'm tired of seeing others get the short end when
it comes to employment and housing.  This year, I am voting for the candidate
who offers the most to those who are discriminated against on the basis
of sexual orientation.

         Carol

    I'm worried in general about sexism, racism, and issues of sexual
    orientation, but on the whole I think society has made progress in
    dealing with such issues and realistically one can't expect to
    solve several generations of problems overnight. 
    
    very concerned with the lack of concern for our
    future generation, the one that is going to have to continue the
    work our foremothers began and we have done our best to bring
    about.  Not the young kids, who are cute and easy to love, but the
    loudmouthed overconfident almost-men and almost-women who are
    facing reduced educational aid, fewer reproductive choices, and a
    punitive attitude that tells them if they don't have the willpower
    to say no to drugs and sex, they aren't worth saving.  Teen
    pregnancy, dropout rates, functional illiteracy, epidemic VD --
    things like that. 
    
    I'm worried about caring for the older generation, not just
    medical needs but housing and companionship and all the issues
    related to maintaining one's dignity in the face of death, the
    final indignity.
    
    I'm worried about the street people, the winos and harmless
    unemployable schizophrenics who don't have anywhere at all to go
    in this society. 

    I'd like to see some creative approaches to deal with some of
    these long-term problems, since throwing money at the problems is
    only a superficial cover.  But failing creative solutions, I'll
    throw more money -- a bandage is better than an uncovered wound. 

    --bonnie

    
    
    I am from Massachusetts and have been here most of my life.  I
    have lived through Republicans and Democrats as govenors.  I liked
    Sargent and I liked first term Dukasis.  I am not really a democrat
    and I have voted for Republicans - rarely.
    
    I guess I don't make enough money to feel the bite in my pay check
    for taxes - but then when I needed help with my two kids the state
    and the feds did give me some money to get by.  And when I bought
    my house I did get help from the then Fed. Hous Authority.  But
    then I went to a state college that only cost me 600+ per year to
    attend and my daughter is going to the same school - that happens
    to be a VERY good engineering school for one tenth of the cost for
    my son to go to a private college in N.H. that is an ok school.
    And of course there is the fact that my Aunt who has been cared
    for by the state since my grandfather died (she was about 15) because
    she has many handicaps and is not capable of caring for herself
    and never has been able to might color my view of the state.  There
    is also the fact that both of my children attend public schools
    in Massachustts up until the 5th grade (have you ever thought about
    how long it takes to pay for their schooling - back in 1973 I was
    on a committee in the town I lived in to evaluate the school system
    and that cost was one of the items we had to deal with) the pay
    back time was something like 5 years for every year of school for
    every student and this is for only the academics not the extras.
    
    I guess what I am trying to say is that though we seem to pay a
    lot in taxes in Massachusetts we do get something for our money.
    
    I always try to vote for the individual who is most likely to work
    towards peace - in the world, in this country, and in the lives
    of all of us.
    
    _peggy
    
    		(-)
    		 |
    
    			When you vote you are choosing a future
    				you want to see happen
    			If you don't vote you are choosing not
    				to have a future
    			Democracy only works with participation
    

I am tired of the sameness, of the 'realistic' compromises. I am tired of
voting practically. I'll vote for anyone with exciting and innovative ideas
on increasing the quality of life. For instance, in this whole drugs thing,
who has said 'how do we make drug-free reality _worth_ living'?
	Mez

    The real problem is...
    
    (Actually, there are masses of problems, and I know it.)
    
    ... is that The System is structured as an Either/Or choice, which
    is a terrible way to run things.  Have you ever seen a preferential
    ballot out here in the real world?  Have you ever gotten to vote
    on the numbers that got plugged into the tax equation?  No?  Neither
    have I.  Is there anyone here who finds that either candidate
    epitomizes her thinking on every issue?  Any issue?
    
    What I want is to be able to select different wavelengths off the
    visible spectrum, while all I'm offered is a choice between puce
    and teal.  Bleah.
    
    							Ann B.

    re: .4
    
    Yes, that's exactly the kind of thing that bothers me.  Drug
    and alcohol abuse isn't a problem itself, it's a symptom of
    another problem that nobody seems willing to acknowledge. 
    
    This is a society in terrible pain.  You can see it in every
    newspaper and talk show in the country.  Whether it's Oprah
    comforting another woman about the agony of surviving childhood
    abuse or Morton Downey lashing the audience's anger and hate,
    it's all pain.  

    And that pain is coloring our political actions.  But how does a
    politician heal the pain of a whole nation?
    
    --bonnie

    I agree that the nation is in pain, and I doubt we can find a
    politican (or any human!) who can heal the pain of the nation.  
    I think we need to do some thinking about the long term, about how
    to heal that pain.  But I'm also worried about the short term 
    implications of having a president who, for example, praises a man
    like Marcos for his "Democratic principles."  I'm appalled by the 
    current administration's willingness to ignore the horrors of South 
    Africa.  For all his faults... at least Dukakis is calling South
    Africa a terrorist state.  

    I hope that women will get out this year and vote... vote for change.  
    It feels like we don't really have a chance right now to vote for 
    peace; I doubt that one president could get us out of all the messes 
    we're in around the globe.  I think this election offers us a chance 
    to vote for a new philosophy, maybe even for new priorities.

    Even if we get the "RayGuns" of the world out of the Whitehouse, we
    still have a long road ahead.  Militarism is big business, and I think 
    that's one of most profound crises of our day; it's profitable to be
    in a state of war.  If we could just get a president in there who
    feels bad about that, we *might* have a chance for meaningful change
    in the years to come.

    Justine

Healing starts with recognition of the wound.

We need a politician who will see the truth and speak it. Which means, we
need to _reward_ politicians who do so, with our support (in whatever form[s]
that takes). Which means that we have to throw support behind the candidate
of our choice when she (or he) speaks the truth, no matter how painful.
	Mez

    Re: .7
    
    Credit where credit is due, please.  The only reason South Africa
    is labelled as a "terrorist state" in the proposed Democratic platform
    is because of Jesse Jackson's delegates.  The Dukakis delegates
    opposed it and finally gave in in a compromise.
    

    
    re .9  about Jackson's influence on Dukakis' stance on South Africa
     Thanks, I didn't know that.  I've had the impression that Dukakis
    is trying to ignore Jackson.  Let's hope that at the very least,
    Jackson will have some real influence on the party platform.
                                                                
    Justine

    As per usual I find myself stuck in the middle.  My politics are half
    democratic and half republican.  Makes sense doesn't it? (Anyone
    interested in starting a new party - liberal conservative or a
    conservative liberal ;-)) So I have to weigh each half (no they are not
    equal halves) and see which is most important to 'me' at this time. 
    
    Currently I have decided to vote for Dukakis - That the democratic
    issues are more important. I feel another 4 years of republicanism will
    be another 4 years of anti-individuals rights and war-mongering
    (illegalizing abortion, forced prayer in school, no ERA, more spending
    on military and the contras). 
    
    As far as Bush selecting a woman - I think it is all talk to try
    to reduce the gender gap.  I admit it would be tempting to help
    get a first into office but I have to vote the issues.

    Does anybody know anything about Sen. Bentsen from Texas? I get
    the impression that he was picked because he's a statesman of
    impeccable integrity, and at 67 he's too old to pose a threat to
    Dukakis in 1992 if he loses this year. 
    
    I know he's considered a conservative, but I believe that's
    primarily in the fiscal sense.  Does anyone know what his voting
    record is on human rights issues?  Family issues?  Technology?
    Trade and industry?  Science?  The arts?
    
    --bonnie

    TV new this morning noted that Bentsen was for prayer in schools.
    Didn't mention any other issues.

    Tv last night said his wife was a member of the group that was involved
    in that hoha about records with, who was it, Gore's wife?  It also
    said he favored an amendment to the Constitution allowing prayer
    in schools.
    

    Why is being Christian and proprayer mean that one isn't pc in
    other areas...or have the fundamentalists given all of the rest
    of us a bad name.
    
    Bonnie

    well, i'm proprayer, as long as it's practiced by consenting adults
    (and children) in the privacy of places such as church or home.
    i get a little concerned when, say, jewish kids, are expected to
    participate in christian prayers as part of the public school
    experience. it seems that expecting everyone to participate in the
    religious experiences of a few is not respectful of differences.
    i'd be concerned that such a lack of respect would flow over into 
    other areas as well.
    
    liz
        

    Re: .15
    
    What does "pc" mean?  I don't care what a politician's religion
    is, but my hair stands on end when someone starts messing with the
    separation of church and state;  I think it means they have a
    fundamental lack of understanding of a Constitutional safeguard.
    
     

    pc = politcally correct. I personally do not feel that there
    should be prayer in school but I do think that there is a place
    in schools for courses that include religions...be they Christian
    or Jewish or Buddist or Wicca or ...or ...or...if you understand
    my meaning....
    
    I think it would be of value to kids to have daily readings
    from the philosophical/religous/what you call it writings..
    I think it streches kids minds..
    
    In removing religion from schools entirely in the name of separating
    church and state we have apeared to kids to deny that a part of
    life that most of them are aware of in one form or another doesn't
    exist. In the name of not offending for example our history books
    no longer mention why the Pilgrims founded Mass or the Catholics
    founded Georgia or the Mormons founded Utah...
    
    in the name of equality we have homogenized history to the point
    where it is a bland listing of facts with none of the human feelings
    that were involved...
    
    for heavens sake...can't we teach that in the past people cared
    strongly about issues that we no longer find right...rather than
    rewriting history to exclude all the stuff we currently don't
    find acceptable a la 1984???
    
    Bonnie

    A lot of people say they support prayer in public schools, because
    it's politically fatal not to, but they never do anything toward
    getting an amendment or whatever passed.  Mr. Reagan, for example,
    has given some fine and touching speeches about how important
    prayer is in our children's lives, but he has only once in eight
    years called any key Congressional powers into his office to ask
    them to support the prayer amendment. And that was as part of a
    whole morality talk that included several more important bills. xD
    
    It's one of those issues that generates a lot more heat than
    light -- and not much information about how a person would
    deal with any of the really hard issues that are likely to
    face this country's leaders over the next four years.
    
    On Bentsen's record -- tonight's AP article says that Bentsen's
    civil rights record is unblemished -- PC from the first civil
    rights bill on down to the present.  I don't know whether that
    includes gay and women's rights as well.
    
    It's perfectly possible to be conservative and tolerant.  
    
    --bonnie 

    p.s. I was 19 before I knew that there were any Buddhists or
    Moslems living in this country.  I thought they were all
    Christians or Jews. 

    Re: .18
    
    Optional courses in comparative religion are not what ....
    what.... I've forgotten his name already... is in favor of.  He's
    in favor of prayer periods in schools.
    
    Sneaking in prayer under the veil of inspirational readings 
    and inflicting it on kids of different religions or of no
    religion still seem wrong to me.  (How would you like it if the daily
    readings for your Christian kids came from the Qur'an?)
    

    Re: .19
    
    I read recently that in something like 20 to 40 years, given the
    present birth rates and patterns of immigration, Islam will be the
    #2 religion in the U.S. in terms of number of adherents.  I've seen
    various political polls lately that list separately the views of
    Christians and Jews;  I wonder when they will do that for Muslims?
                   

    re: .20
    
    I would be delighted if my Christian kids were taught what the
    Koran (sorry I can't spell it right, it just scrolled off my
    screen -- another gap in my education) as well as the beliefs
    of the other major religions.
    
    We live in a world community.  How can one claim to understand
    one's Japanese colleagues, for example, if one is not familiar
    with the beliefs of Shinto, Hindu, Buddha?  How does one begin
    to understand the Middle East situation without a thorough
    grounding in the history of religion?
    
    --bonnie

    
    re .20 re .18
    
    I don't think anyone is talking about banning courses in world
    religions from public school curricula.  I think the issue is: 
    should kids be forced to bow their heads for 5 minutes every morning
    to "pray?"  I knew a muslim man in Philly who almost got kicked
    out of school for refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag.
    I think the movement away from school prayer has to do with
    recognizing the diversity of our culture.
    
    Justine

    re: .23 
    
    Banning courses in world religion, no.  Discussing the beliefs of
    individual students, yes. 
    
    And Bonnie R. was correct when she pointed out that many textbooks
    have had the religious component taken out of them. And it's very
    difficult to explain the inquisition, the history of Britain, or
    the development of religious freedom without the context of
    religious feeling or belief.
    
    I am not sure myself how I feel about the prayer amendment. On the
    one hand, all it says is school districts can set aside a time for
    prayer and meditation or quiet reflection -- principles most
    people can find room for in their lives.  On the other hand I'm
    sure you're right that some schools will take that as a mandate to
    harrass kids who aren't obviously praying in a Christian manner
    (or in a Moslem manner in a predominantly Moslem school, for that
    matter). 
    
    But, as I said earlier, I am sure that it's not a litmus test for
    anyone's views on anything else.  In context of the topic of this
    note, one of the issues I'm NOT worrying about this year is school
    prayer. 
    
    --bonnie

    Maybe if all of us were comfortable to meditate, or focus,
    or pray, or chant as we each saw fit then we would truely
    be living in the perfect world.
    
    I think it is very important to encourage children to see 
    beyond the obvious to the supernatural..no matter how we
    define it..and by editing religion out of our past history
    we lose a lot of what brought us to be where we are now.
    
    I think kids *should* be encouraged to make religous choices..
    
    either for or against...the current situation lets them
    feel that religion is nothing more than a supersition..
    
    and that isn't a valid choice..
    
    Bonnie

    <--(.back there somewhere by Bonnie Jeanne)
    
    Bonnie, the books when you and I were in school sure's hell didn't
    correctly characterise the reason the Pilgrims came to America. The
    party line was that they came for religious freedom, with no mention
    made of the fact that they were utterly opposed to anyone's religious
    freedom but their own.  
    
    I'm by no means sure that the misinformation and utter bushwah of
    yesterday was better than the silence of today.
    
    						=maggie 

    Re: .27
    
    The question of "letting school children choose to participate"
    has already been gone over in court -- it still makes non-Christian
    or whatever children feel like outsiders.
    
    What I don't understand is why people feel that they have to intrude
    their religious beliefs into the school system.  I sometimes feel
    like asking if they don't allow their kids to pray at home;  maybe
    during school hours is the only chance the kids get....
    
    Re: some one back about readings from the Qu'ran
    
    Then what do you do when your kid comes home and tells you Jesus
    isn't God, cause the teacher said so in the readings that morning?
    
                                                 

    My (ex) school system complied with this "school prayer " deal
    by instituting a "Moment of Silence" at the beginning of the day.
    Pray, meditate, do the rosary, study, whatever....
    
    Of course, by junior high school it was more a Moment of Giggle
    or Moment of Note-passing...
    
    I prayed that (*&% prayer every morning in elementary school
    (I even recited the Pledge of Allegiance before "under God" was
    added to it!!!) - and I am, I suspect, neither a better nor worse
    person for it.
    
    --DE
    

    re: .28
    
    I tell my kid that lots of people don't think Jesus is God, but I
    do.
    
    --bonnie    

    It seems to me that school is not the place for the religious
    experience.  We don't expect to come to work and all stand for a
    moment of prayer do we?  I send my children to school to learn,
    not to pray.  They can pray to themselves if they want, they can
    pray at home, they can pray after school.  Why is it necessary for
    them to pray at school?  
    
    I feel that religion is a personal thing that should not be forced on 
    anyone, ...  instituting "state" policies on school prayer are 
    intimidating.  Separation of church and state is a fine and difficult 
    line but one that is an integral part of our democratic system.  I
    don't think it is necessary to pray in school.
    Mary

    RE: .31 - well said.
    
    The thing with the gentleman under discussion is (Yeah, yeah,
    I forgot his name, too) is that issues like school prayer seem to
    be forming a pattern here - a definitely conservative pattern.
    
    Guess Mike thinks he needs soem conservatism to balance out his
    (supposed) liberalism. *gulp*
    
    --DE
    

    Re: .33
    
    The difference is that in this country a person has a right to have
    his or her children follow one religion or no religions without
    their being ostracized for it in the public schools.  There is not a
    corresponding right to be a racial bigot without feeling ostracized.
    
    As for holding religious observances on school property, I point
    out that it is spelled s-c-h-o-o-l, not c-h-u-r-c-h, etc.
    

    Re: .34
    
    I think that's precisely the point.  If someone wants to pray silently
    at school, there is nothing to stop them.  Therefore the insistence
    on setting aside a time interval that effects everyone and making
    a public display of it, seems to be solely for the purpose of either
    proselytizing directly or indirectly thru making non- or
    other-believing children feel like outsiders.
    

    In response to the original question, have a hard time believing
    that any political platform will actually be carried out, or that
    any President will actually do what he decries so fervently.  Honesty
    and politics evidently do NOT make good bedfellows, since there
    seems to be so little of the former and so much of the latter in
    every country, including the good ol' USA.  What I want to vote
    for is an honest candidate who is not afraid of his image and will
    be truthful with "we, the people." Someone who will genuinely do his
    best on any issue to the best of his ability; preferably someone
    interested in daycare centers, better educational opportunities
    for college-bound students, single parents, senior citizens, and
    on and on and on... Alas, where is this knight (or woman) is shining
    armor?  Not on this ballot!  As a 60's poster once read, "No matter
    who you vote for, the government gets in!"
    
    Barb

    
    
    	re .37
    	<What I want to vote for is an honest candidate who is not 
    	<afraid of his (/HER) image and will be truthful with "we, 
    	<the people." Someone who will genuinely do his (/HER)
	< best on any issue to the best of his (/HER) ability;
    
    	( the (/HER)'s are mine - someday, maybe! )
    
    	How about changing the system so that the President is 
	limited to only ONE term?!  Then, maybe instead of spending
    	four years planning how to get re-elected, we could have
    	someone who wasn't afraid to say some things that need to be
    	said.
    
    	BTW - Has anyone read _The Handmaid's Tale_?   What do we want:
    	      Freedom from, or freedom to?
    
    	Sharon
    

    
    Bleah...
    
    	I don't like either Bush or Dukakis.  I haven't decide which
    one I'm going to vote for - I've got to decide which is the "lesser
    of two evils".
    
    	I've talked to quite a few people who feel this way.
    
    Sigh
    
    Corinne
    

    
    
    If you're having trouble deciding between the "two evils,"  try
    thinking not only about who the president will be, but about who
    the top appointees will be.  Who will be Attorney General?  Who
    will be Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of
    Human Services?  Then... even if you don't like either candidate
    personally, you might think about the likely policies of each
    candidate.  For example, would one president be more likely than 
    another to say, carry on a covert war in Central America and use 
    the proceeds from illegal drug and illegal weapons sales to fund 
    it?  Would one president be more likely than another to approve oil 
    drilling in or right next to conservation lands?  
    
    When I think about those kinds of questions, I feel much better about 
    voting for Dukakis (even though he's made me real mad on some issues.)
    I want the Reagan/Bush years to end!
    
    Justine
                                                                        

    That's a good point, Justine, and not one I had thought of
    before. 
    
    When I think of politics, I tend to think of who has the power to
    pass legislation, and hence to worry about Congress a lot more
    than about the president, but the people who enforce the laws and
    make the rules are probably going to have more impact on the
    average person's life than Congressional debates will. 
    
    --bonnie

    
    A continuation of Reagan policies?  No thank you.  I've had enough
    of his policies, and a vote for Bush is just like putting Reagan
    in for a third term.
    
    I'll vote Dukakis!
        

    I heard that Bentsen supposedly supports aid to the contras and
    that he voted for the Reagan tax cuts.  
    
    What really hit home for me about this election is that the Supreme
    Court's few remaining liberal justices are just hanging on by the skin
    of their teeth. The next president will have a chance to either create
    a totally right-wing court or keep at least some degree of balance.
    National Public Radio pointed out that the Reagon "agenda" would be
    fulfilled over many years to come if Bush won the right to appoint
    Supreme Court justices.  I shudder to think of the results for women.
     
    
    Nina

	NPR has also pointed out that despite reagan's attempt to stack the
	supreme court the decisions are not falling his way. Even Rhenquist
	went against him on the right to a special prosecutor to investigate
	the executive branch. I still believe the conservatives have the edge
	though, and would greatly prefer Dukakis appointing the next judge.

	I've heard it said that women get more liberal as they age so maybe
	O'Conner will turn out OK in the long run. She's already sided with
	what I consider the 'correct' side a number of times. liesl

    re: .44
    
    Yes, the awesome responsibility of being on the Supreme Court
    seems to bring out the best in a lot of otherwise average
    appointees.  In addition, it is possible to be conservative
    and still be open-minded and fair.  
    
    But I don't have very much faith that Dukakis would actually
    appoint someone who was any more liberal than Bush would. Dukakis
    seems like the kind of person who is likely to appoint either 1) a
    conservative, in an attempt to buy conservative support for
    something else, 2) someone so innocuous no one opposes him/her.
    
    Another factor to be taken into account is how the president is
    going to behave under pressure, in a crisis situation such as when
    the wrong jet gets shot down (by us or by them). I don't think
    Dukakis can be counted on for insightful decisions -- he's too
    likely to be swayed by whatever the public is clamoring for -- but
    I don't have the faintest idea what Bush would do.  
    
    I don't think what Bush has done as vice president (being Reagan's
    yes-man) is any indication of what he would do when he's on his
    own as president.  I don't see too clues about his real beliefs,
    though. 
    
    --bonnie 
    
    
     

    Please see 1.8 for the revised policy on FWO notes.  This policy
    is now in effect.
    
    						=maggie

Re: .45

Bonnie, I have lived in Massachusetts ever since Dukakis was 
first elected governor.  I think he has been an excellent 
governor and I see no basis for your assertion that he would 
be "swayed by whatever the public was clamoring for." However, 
this country is supposed to be a democracy so I would hope 
that our elected officials would pay some attention to what 
the public says (it certainly took them long enough to 
register the lack of public support for the war in Vietnam).
  
If you want to talk about inconsistency, I doubt there has 
ever been a candidate for president as inconsistent as George 
Bush.  It was Bush who first used the term "Voodoo 
economics" to describe Reagan's theories (but, of course, that 
was back in the primary where he was running against Reagan 
for the Republican nomination - once Reagan won and picked him 
as VP, he quickly recanted.)  Also, I am old enough to 
remember the days when George Bush was pro-choice.  My mother 
is very active in the Massachusetts Republican party and has 
been for thirty years.  Because of her, I once attended 
a large gathering in Framingham in the 1970's where George Bush 
spoke.  He was asked his opinion about abortion and the law.  
He said that while he personally believed only in abortions in 
cases of rape, incest or endangering the mother's health,
he would not support any laws that made abortion illegal 
because it was a personal issue and the government shouldn't be 
involved.  That is very different from what he is saying 
today.  I don't think George Bush has any integrity and I 
could never vote for him.
  

    re:.47
    
    In the interests of being fair (I'm not a Bush supporter),
    people *are* allowed to change their minds on issues, even
    politicians.
    
    --- jerry

    re:.48
    
    true, people can and should be allowed to change their minds but
    George Bush has made several major flip-flops in short periods
    of time.  I think it is more a matter of political expediency than
    truly changing his mind.  Also, when people change their mind they
    usually acknowledge the fact ("I used to think such-and such but
    now I see things differently") rather than insisting they have always
    been true believers.  
    
    Sue
    

    re: .49
    
    Which is why I said in .45 that I feel like I don't know what Bush
    would do if he were president.  If political expediency dictates a
    right-wing Supreme Court nominee, Bush will pick a right-wing
    nominee -- unless he takes it into his head to do something else,
    the way he did with Sen. Quayle. 
    
    By the by, I have noticed in recent weeks that it's almost
    impossible to discuss the pros and cons of a candidate's position,
    qualifications, record, and probable future behavior without
    having one's negative comments taken as advocacy of the other
    candidate.   Kind of funny . . . but I suppose inevitable when
    there are only two choices.   
    
    [sorry to be late answering here; I've been on vacation and
    I'm not noting much these days.]
    
    --bonnie

    
    I'm really worried that with two pretty dull candidates people will
    stay home on election day.  I think that if everyone who had a lot 
    to lose by Reagan staying in power for another 4 years had voted in 
    '84, he never would have been re-elected.  Perhaps there should be a 
    get-out-and-vote PR campaign.  What comes to my mind is a poster with 
    a picture of a woman pulling the Dukakis lever with one hand and holding her
    nose with the other.
    
    BTW,  127 days left of the Reagan presidency, but who's counting?
    
    Justine      

    Interesting letter was published in this week's newsweek...I got quite
    a laugh out of this one... paraphrased as best I can remember... 
    
    "The fact that the Republicans think that women will vote for George
    Bush because Quayle looks like Robert Redford, reminds me of why the
    GOP faces such a large gender gap in the first place..."
    
    Re. 51
    
     - 127 days seems like eternity....Has it really been eight
    years?  To think when Reagan was first elected, I was too young
    to vote!
    
    Suzanne
    
    

    Did anyone else hear the news item that Reagan's aides (some of?
    all of?) were going to invoke the 25th amendment (impeachment?)
    during the IRan-Contra scandal, because he had become distracted
    and vague (and apparently dysfunctional).
    
    My question is:
    
    
    
    How could they *tell*?
    
    --DE
    

    re: .53
    
    The way I heard it, one aide recommended that someone else
    take over temporarily [the 25th amendment is the one that provides
    for what to do when the president is still alive but unable
    to perform her duties] because Reagan was depressed, but none
    of the other aides went along with it. 
    
    The report I heard did not mention whether they disagreed,
    didn't care, or just couldn't tell. 

    --bonnie    

    re:  .54
    
    "....is still alive but unable to perform her duties..."
                                              ^^^
    
    Oooooohhh.....I REALLY like this! Something akin to
    "when God made man she was only kidding"
    

re .53

	Easy, he started acting like a Democrat.


				Tom_K