🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MS-C.718850250.1103527590.mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM> mrc@Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM (Mark Crispin) writes:
>Clinton spent most of his time trying to appeal to the `anyone but Bush'
>crowd.  He talked a lot about the changes he would supposedly make but didn't
>offer much in the way of specifics.  He answered Bush's `I will stay the
>course' with his `trust me.'
>
>The big winner was Perot.  He was fantastic.  I don't think he's going to be
>able to win the election, but you can't feel guilty about voting for Perot
>after tonight.  Whether the Bush-man or the blow-dried JFK-wannabie win, the
>next four years are going to be nasty.  A Perot voter will have the
>satisfaction of knowing it isn't his fault.

What?  If you don't think Clinton offered much in the way of specifics
how can you say Perot was fantastic?  The most common line I heard from
Perot when pressed for specifics was "Just send me to Washington and we'll
get it done".  Mark, it appears to me that you're applying a double standard 
here....



-- 
Michael Burr   mnb@voodoo.boeing.com  | Boeing Computer Services, Bellevue WA