🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CyG7Es.A1t@metronet.com>, Joseph Huber writes:

> Voting for the challenger just to get rid of the incumbent can be disasterous
> if the challenger has no qualifications for the office, which brings me to the
> Texas governor's race...
> 
> I've only been in Texas for a few months, but I'm going to speculate that the
> only reason George W. Bush is even in this race is because of the
> anti-imcumbancy wave that's currently sweeping the country. He has no

Wrong!  It wasn't an "anti-incumbency" wave - it was an "anti-Democrat" wave.
Note that NO Republican incumbents lost in any of the Congressional or
Gubernatorial races.  The whole "anti-incumbency" line is just a smokescreen
for the Democrats to hide behind.

> government experience. That's ok, but when a candidate has no government
> experience, I usually look at business experience, and I don't like what I see

[anti-Bush junk deleted.]
> to be ethically sound, but so does Ann Richards. It takes more than a nice man
> to run Texas.  

I'd rather have a "nice man" than a rude, obnoxious liberal woman.

> Couldn't the Republicans find anybody more qualified than GWB?

Yes, but once Bush announced, noone wanted to stand up against the son of
the former President.

By the way folks, there is ONE reason Richards lost.  It wasn't coattails
of the Republican wave.  It wasn't "anti-incumbency."  It wasn't even her
buddy Clinton.  It was Anne Richards herself.


                                                Jim Pritchett


UUCP:  rwsys.lonestar.org!caleb!jdp             "For with God nothing shall
                                                be impossible."   Luke 1:37