To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (1598 ) 11/21/2000 12:04:32 AM From: lml Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 3887 Hi Ken: The arguments you raise, are some of the more valid ones I come across from Gore supporters on this thread. I think that no one can challenge the damage that this bi-partisan effort has caused the Presidency, whether George Bush or AlGore assume the Presidency. Either way the country loses as the divisiveness that exists across the country, and as evidenced on this thread, will surely be manifested, if not magnified, by our representatives on Capitol Hill. In that respect either candidate that assumes office has the great task before him -- to heal the wounds resulting from the serious political and legal conflict. With that said, I think you take a more dim, less optimistic view of the resiliency of our country, and the ability of George Bush to be a uniter, not a divider, of political interests, unlike his political opponent, Mr. Gore. You may question the skills of George Bush, and I cannot and choose not to debate them, but I submit to you that he is apt to surround himself with a quite able staff, and the best of executive branch talent the Republican Party has to offer. To say "Bush will have a caretaker presidency;" that "he appears to be a figure head;" and to not "expect [him to get] much from Congress" is quite premature, less than optimistic, and arguably representative of attitude that Democrats are bound to have to undermine his presidency should he assume office. Such an immediate unwillingness to acknowledge the authenticity of his office is consistent with the type of demeanor exhibited by Democrats over the past few weeks that IMHO has been and will continue to be destructive to the underpinnings of our government and our society. In short, I'm sorry you feel that way. I think if the shoe were on the other foot, and the Presidency was leaning in the favor of Al Gore, I'd think you'd get a stronger endorsement from the Republicans than the one you paint here. JMO.