I'm Shocked!
dd
> CHICAGO (Reuters) - Republican presidential nominee
> George W. Bush (news - web sites) was arrested for
> drunken driving and had his driving license suspended
> in 1976 after drinking several beers in a bar, the Bush
> campaign acknowledged on Thursday.
>
I'm shocked by this stunning disclosure. Thank God,
we received this news before its too late! Can
you imagine this man with his finger on the nuke
button?
Frank
COMMENT: FYI ....... By Alan Simpson
Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore's new campaign ad is running
in
your state and says he is "fighting for us." But the true story of his
Gulf
War vote says he is usually fighting for Al. Here is the inside story
of
what happened.
The Gulf War vote was pretty serious business. I can't think of anyone
who
didn't have a lump in his or her throat as they weighed the situation -
500,000 American troops already deployed; Iraq's Saddam Hussein
promising
the "mother of all battles"; most "experts" predicting heavy American
losses.
The choice was not easy. Senators with combat experience on both sides
of
the aisle were on both sides of the issue. Some Democrats openly
supported
the measure; some Republicans openly opposed it. And vice versa.
The seriousness of the situation called for open, honest debate. No
deal
making. No politics. Just an honest discussion, followed by an honest
vote of
conscience by each senator. As Republican whip, I worked with the
Republican
leader Bob Dole and the Democratic leaders, George Mitchell and Sam
Nunn, to schedule the debate. As Republicans, Sen. Dole and I were
responsible
for scheduling time to speak for senators who supported the war. As
Democrats,
Sens. Mitchell and Nunn were responsible for scheduling time to speak
for
those who opposed the war.
The night before this monumental debate, I sat in the Republican
cloakroom
with Sen. Dole discussing the debate schedule for the next day. Then a
senator walked in and asked to speak to us. It surprised Bob and me
because he
was a Democrat coming to ask for a favor.
He was Tennessee Sen. Al Gore Jr. Sen. Gore got right to the point:
"How
much time will you give me if I support the president?" In layman's
terms,
Gore was asking how much debate time we would be willing to give him to
speak on the floor if he voted with us.
"How much time will the Democrats give you?" Sen. Dole asked.
"Seven minutes," came the droning response.
"I'll give you 15 minutes," Dole said.
"And I'll give you five of mine, so you can have 20 minutes," I
offered. Gore
seemed pleased, but made no final commitment, promising only to think
it over.
Gore played hard to get. He had received his time. But now he wanted
prime time. And Dole and I knew it.
After Gore left, Dole asked Republican Senate Secretary Howard Greene to
call Gore's office and promised that he would try to schedule Gore's
20 minutes during prime time, thus ensuring plenty of coverage in the
news cycle. Later that night, Gore called Greene and asked if Dole had
him in a prime time speaking slot.
When Green said nothing had been finalized yet, Gore erupted:
"Damn it, Howard! If I don't get 20 minutes tomorrow, I'm going to
vote the other way."
The following day, Gore arrived on the Senate floor, still waiting
to see which side - Republicans or Democrats - would offer him the
most and the best speaking time. Sen. Dole immediately asked the
Senate to increase the amount of speaking time for both sides.
I believe only then, after Gore realized we were asking for more
time to make room for him on our side, that he finally decided to
support the resolution authorizing the use of force to drive
Hussein out of Kuwait.
It brings me no joy to recount the events leading up to the
Gulf War vote. It isn't something I wanted to do. But it is
something I have to do.
I was there. I have to set the record straight because the Gore
campaign is now running an ad proclaiming that Al Gore
"broke with his own party to support the Gulf War." In reality, it's
much closer to the truth to say he broke for the cameras to
support the Gulf War.
And I have to set the record straight because the Gulf War vote
was far too important an issue to fall victim to politics and
repulsive revising. It was a moment of challenge. Sadly, Al Gore
was not up to it. In January of 1991, Al Gore put politics
over principle.
Alan Simpson is a former Republican senator from Wyoming.
Dustin
news:deming-02...@zoom0-034.telepath.com...
Yeah, if this is the "October Surprise" I've definitely overestimated the
Democrat's political competence. I predicted long ago that Gore would win,
and I'm starting to doubt myself. If anything, this shows Bush to have been
in a situation "regular people" have to deal with. Have a couple of glasses
of wine with your New York Strip, get arrested on the way home for nothing.
What happens when Gore's son is pulled over driving 100 MPH?.....well, the
hearing is delayed until after the election. But as Bruce would say "What
I'm saying is that there isn't any evidence of that intent aside from the
timing of the release. Before we can validly conclude that something
sinister was going on, we need more than that." ;) I'm dumb, but well,
just not that dumb.
I'm voting for Browne either way, but the tactics the Gore campaign have
employed the last couple of days are going to hurt him. Bush got pulled
over after having a few beers, big deal. They accuse Nader of being gay,
big deal....but this "lashing out at anything and everything" won't bid well
with people. And this Nader accusation by the Gore campaign was an
especially stupid move considering the tight(ening) race in California. I
fully expect the Bush campaign to release a "DUI reform legislative agenda"
after this being reported, just as Gore calls for "campaign finance reform"
after his at the State Monastery(tm).
Dustin
Dan
<snip>
>Yeah, if this is the "October Surprise" I've definitely overestimated the
>Democrat's political competence. I predicted long ago that Gore would win,
>and I'm starting to doubt myself. If anything, this shows Bush to have been
>in a situation "regular people" have to deal with. Have a couple of glasses
>of wine with your New York Strip, get arrested on the way home for nothing.
I have to wonder if Gore was sittin' around rolling up a 'fat one' at the exact
same moment.
>What happens when Gore's son is pulled over driving 100 MPH?.....well, the
>hearing is delayed until after the election. But as Bruce would say "What
>I'm saying is that there isn't any evidence of that intent aside from the
>timing of the release. Before we can validly conclude that something
>sinister was going on, we need more than that." ;) I'm dumb, but well,
>just not that dumb.
>
>I'm voting for Browne either way,
I must say that I have agreed with many things Harry Browne has said and if
this election wasn't so close I might have thrown my weight behind him. But..
this election has too much at stake for me to let the chips fall.
I can't understand for the life of me why the hell Boomer hasn't jumped the
Browne Brigade. The Dems never addressed legalization over the last 8 years,
Browne has.
but the tactics the Gore campaign have
>employed the last couple of days are going to hurt him. Bush got pulled
>over after having a few beers, big deal. They accuse Nader of being gay,
>big deal....but this "lashing out at anything and everything" won't bid well
>with people. And this Nader accusation by the Gore campaign was an
>especially stupid move considering the tight(ening) race in California.
What is so hilarious is that the Nader supporters wouldn't give a shit.
The Dems have been telling us for years that a persons sexuality should be,
well, personal, that they support gay rights, that what happens in the privacy
of one's bedroom (or Oval Office) between consenting adults is none of our
business, yet they come out and question Nader's sexuality claiming he might
have homosexual orgies in the White House?
Would Barney Frank be invited?
Michael A. Clem
Jerry Morgan <bubba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 03 Nov 2000 05:54:51 GMT, jenkins...@aol.come.on (Dan) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >I must say that I have agreed with many things Harry Browne has said
and if
> >this election wasn't so close I might have thrown my weight behind
him. But..
> >this election has too much at stake for me to let the chips fall.
>
>
> If ever there's to be change for the better it's going to take several
> election cycles with candiates such as Harry Browne building an ever
> broading base of support. It's not necessary for Browne to 'win' to
> bring about change for the better. By simply making a good showing he
> will influence government for the next four years and beyond.
>
> Every vote for Harry Browne is a vote for change and a vote against
> 'business as usual'.
>
> >I can't understand for the life of me why the hell Boomer hasn't
jumped the
> >Browne Brigade. The Dems never addressed legalization over the last
8 years,
> >Browne has.
>
>
> I feel that a vote for either Bush or Gore is a wasted vote.
>
>
Thanks, Jer. I just want to point out that given Oklahoma's ballot
access laws, Browne (and Buchanan with the Reform Party, for that
matter) has to get 10% of the Oklahoma vote, or the party loses ballot
access and will have to start petitioning all over again for the next
election cycle. We're working on changing Oklahoma's ballot access
laws, but it's not going to happen right away.
Besides Browne, all Oklahomans will be able to vote for our
Corporation Commissioner candidate Roger Bloxham, and for a Libertarian
U.S. Congressional candidate in each of the six districts. I am the
candidate in District One. We also have a few candidates in the State
Senate and Representative races. See list below.
--Michael Clem
http://www.clemforcongress.org
Libertarian Candidates in Oklahoma:
Presidential Candidate
Harry Browne
www.HarryBrowne.org
P.O. Box 2347
Arlington, VA 22202
(800) 777-2000
Corporation Commissioner
Roger Bloxham
air...@telepath.com
3458 S. 65th W. Ave
Tulsa, OK 74107
(918) 447-1776
US Representative District 1
Michael Clem
mac....@juno.com
415 S. 66th E. Ave.
Tulsa, OK 74112-1815
(918) 835-7496
www.clemforcongress.org
US Representative District 2
Neil Mavis
Neil...@mindspring.com
1530 South Trenton
Tulsa, OK 74120
(918) 645-1645
www.neilmavis.com
US Representative District 3
R.C. Sevier White
RCSevi...@oklp.org
2532 Butler Drive
Norman, OK 73069
US Representative District 4
Keith B. Johnson
KeithB...@oklp.org
5514 N. Floyd Cox Drive
Norman, OK 73026
(405) 307-0233
US Representative District 5
Robert Murphy
w...@telepath.com
1620 Franklin Drive
Norman, OK 74112
(405) 447-4008
www.telepath.com/ww
US Representative District 6
Joseph V. Cristiano
JosephVC...@oklp.org
8243 S. Louisville
Tulsa, OK 74137
(918) 749-7711
State Senate District 41
Clark Duffe
Rogu...@aol.com
109 Rockeypoint Drive
Edmond, OK 73003
(405) 348-0293
State Representative District 44
Aaron Lein
Lib...@ou.edu
314 E. Boyd, #2
Norman, OK 73069
(918) 330-1266
State Representative District 74
Albro Daniel
Albr...@ionet.net
305 S. Main Street
Owasso, OK 74055
(918) 274-6346
www.ionet.net/~albro2000
State Representative District 82
Steve Galpin
GalpinF...@aol.com
10813 Dorothy Drive
Oklahoma City, OK 73162
(405) 720-2180
State Representative District 100
Christopher Powell
Cspo...@rocketmail.com
6905 NW 59th Street
Bethany, OK 73008
(405) 720-1634
www.votepowell.com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Boomerlake
RIGHT. You never can tell when a recovered alcoholic will go back to
drinking.
Dan
<snip>
>What better time than now with so much at stake to vote for Browne?
You do have a point, in some sense. Oklahoma is going to Bush, not Gore. I
could vote for Browne to help him in the future, even though I do realize the
winner will be Gore or Bush.
Some say the 'lesser of two evils' in this race, that they both suck, but what
they inhale is where the distinction is. Jerry, I am with you on the 'Hate
Crimes' issue. It has no place in our government, but Gore will give us a
'Thought Crimes Bill' which will increase racism, not reduce it.
Bush wants to improve our military, and now Gore is claiming the same. We have
the technology available, we should be able to blow up anyone, anywhere at any
time, and that threat and availability alone should be the greatest deterrent
to defend our nation.
The 'lesser of two evils' favor Bush in my mind.
>If ever there's to be change for the better it's going to take several
>election cycles with candiates such as Harry Browne building an ever
>broading base of support. It's not necessary for Browne to 'win' to
>bring about change for the better. By simply making a good showing he
>will influence government for the next four years and beyond.
I can't disagree with that.
<snip>
>Maybe he [Boomer] feels a vote for Browne is a 'wasted vote', I dunno.
He might, or the Democratic party has him too scared to leave the reservation.
There are times when I do agree with Boomer, at least on some issues, but I
could debate hundreds of thousands of Democratic zombies and the text would be
the same talking points from the DNC website.
Have you read Cher's phone call to Wall of Sound? She has two great lines that
sum it all up:
"I don't like Bush," she said of George W. "I don't trust him. I don't like his
record. He's stupid. He's lazy."
That 'lazy' bastard could run circles around me, plus she gives no reason to
dislike his record. I think the Gore and DNC sites claim the same.
Then, there is the other quote:
"I'm supposed to go out and talk to people this week and tell them that if you
vote for Ralph Nader that's all well and good, but a vote for Nader is a vote
for Bush."
She is *supposed to* do these things? Who is making her *do* anything? Her
agent, that's who, taking advantage of the Hollywood Way to gain her more
spotlight time. She isn't even a registered voter, yet these issues make her
"passionate" about this election.
Cher is a prime example of how abusive the Hollywood mindless sway fans.
>I feel that a vote for either Bush or Gore is a wasted vote.
There are far too many differences between the parties IMO to claim that.
Dan
>>I'm shocked by this stunning disclosure. Thank God,
>>we received this news before its too late! Can
>>you imagine this man with his finger on the nuke
>>button?
>
> RIGHT. You never can tell when a recovered alcoholic will go back to
>drinking.
Hmm, couldn't the same thing be said about opiate users? Heroin is highly
addictive and people have fallen back into that trap several times. Cindy
McCain had a hard time overcoming her pain-killer addiction. Gore was 'Tokin
the Thai' long enough, are you not worried about him?
Are you confident that he won't spill the bong water on 'The Button'?
Jerry Morgan
>Jerry Morgan wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>What better time than now with so much at stake to vote for Browne?
>
>You do have a point, in some sense. Oklahoma is going to Bush, not Gore. I
>could vote for Browne to help him in the future, even though I do realize the
>winner will be Gore or Bush.
Certainly the 'winner' of the election will be Gore or Bush. My
opinion is that the country will be a 'loser' with either. Granted
the degree of loss that will result from which is elected is arguable
but I feel neither will be 'good' for the country as a whole.
>Some say the 'lesser of two evils' in this race, that they both suck, but what
>they inhale is where the distinction is. Jerry, I am with you on the 'Hate
>Crimes' issue. It has no place in our government, but Gore will give us a
>'Thought Crimes Bill' which will increase racism, not reduce it.
I can not recall who wrote/said it or where I heard/read it, but...
"Voting for the candidate one perceives as the lesser of evils is none
the less voting *for* evil.".
>Bush wants to improve our military, and now Gore is claiming the same. We have
>the technology available, we should be able to blow up anyone, anywhere at any
>time, and that threat and availability alone should be the greatest deterrent
>to defend our nation.
I'd be the first to admit holding the opinion that our military is in
dire condition. Not the 'high tech' military but the men and women
that comprise the 'fighting force' of this nation.
Far too damned many 'perfumed princes' concerned with their personal
ambitions and political correctness are in the military leadership
roles and my opinion is they could not collectively find their ass,
let alone wipe it. Yet they are supposedly 'leading' our warriors.
The only place they are leading them is *out* of the military and into
the civilian workforce in record numbers.
>The 'lesser of two evils' favor Bush in my mind.
While I would agree that in many respects Bush may well be the lesser
of evils, he's still evil, IMHO. I don't vote for evil.
If there's no candidate on the ballot I do not consider 'evil', I
simply refuse to vote in that race. If the election process is such
that I *must* select a candidate in *every* race in order to have my
vote counted in any race then I simply straight party vote
libertarian. Although I've found a few 'wacky' libertarians over the
years I've yet to encounter one that I consider 'evil'.
<snip>
>Have you read Cher's phone call to Wall of Sound? She has two great lines that
>sum it all up:
<snip Cher-ism's>
>Cher is a prime example of how abusive the Hollywood mindless sway fans.
I've always liked Cher for her musical talents and I gotta' admit
she's damned well preserved for her age.
I never considered her or her 'ex' the late Sonny Bono to have enough
sense to make a political statement, let alone advise me on politics.
The weird thing is Sonny made it all the way to the U.S. House, which
isn't as much an endorsement of Bono as it is a reflection on the
quality of people we elect to public office.
>>I feel that a vote for either Bush or Gore is a wasted vote.
>
>There are far too many differences between the parties IMO to claim that.
Obviously we differ greatly on the degree of difference between the
DemoPublicans. Of course that's why we have multiple political
parties and numerous flavors of ice cream, I guess.
Boomerlake
Not at all. I've tried pot and I've tried alcohol. The alcohol messed me up
more. Boomer
Boomerlake
>>Maybe he [Boomer] feels a vote for Browne is a 'wasted vote', I dunno.
>
>He might, or the Democratic party has him too scared to leave the
>reservation.
I've wasted my vote before by voting for Perot. This time around I choose to
waste my vote by voting for Gore.
No, the Republican party has me scared. I like some of the ideas of the
Libertarians, such as legalizing drugs, but their desire to abolish taxes and
the government that goes with it leaves me with doubts that it would work.
Would the voluntary work and cash contributions of the people make up for it?
I don't know. Boomer
Jerry Morgan
<snip>
>I must say that I have agreed with many things Harry Browne has said and if
>this election wasn't so close I might have thrown my weight behind him. But..
>this election has too much at stake for me to let the chips fall.
What better time than now with so much at stake to vote for Browne?
If ever there's to be change for the better it's going to take several
election cycles with candiates such as Harry Browne building an ever
broading base of support. It's not necessary for Browne to 'win' to
bring about change for the better. By simply making a good showing he
will influence government for the next four years and beyond.
Every vote for Harry Browne is a vote for change and a vote against
'business as usual'.
>I can't understand for the life of me why the hell Boomer hasn't jumped the
>Browne Brigade. The Dems never addressed legalization over the last 8 years,
>Browne has.
Maybe he feels a vote for Browne is a 'wasted vote', I dunno.
terry
now. What I've told them is that I'm not wasting my vote, I'm investing it!
The pay-off may not come for several more election cycles, but when it does,
it will have been worth the wait!
I'll be voting Libertarian in every option available....
Terry
Michael A. Clem <macs...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tv0om$nre$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <bje50tg49fjb5ni57...@news.alt.net>,
> Jerry Morgan <bubba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Jerry Morgan
>>
>>>Maybe he [Boomer] feels a vote for Browne is a 'wasted vote', I dunno.
>>
>>He might, or the Democratic party has him too scared to leave the
>>reservation.
>
>I've wasted my vote before by voting for Perot. This time around I choose to
>waste my vote by voting for Gore.
While Perot was 'interesting' and an argument can be made that his
candidacy 'helped' Clinton, as subsequent events have shown Perot and
his 'party' have become insignificant. It takes a lot more than a
rich man, his ego and a one-man political party to bring about change.
The Libertarian party has been around for years working to build a
broad national base and bring about change from the grass roots. If
there's ever to be a third, fourth or subsequent major political
parties this is how it must be done.
>No, the Republican party has me scared. I like some of the ideas of the
>Libertarians, such as legalizing drugs, but their desire to abolish taxes and
>the government that goes with it leaves me with doubts that it would work.
>Would the voluntary work and cash contributions of the people make up for it?
>I don't know. Boomer
Granted the Libertarian party does has some radical ideas and yes I do
have problems with some of them. However, seldom does a political
party operate in a vacuum. There's always counter-points, checks and
balances and 'give and take' in politics. As the Democrats and
Republicans have become more and more alike there's a need for
additional counter-points, checks and balances and another prospective
for the 'give and take'. The Libertarian party better than anything
existing today provides that needed counter-balance.
- - - - -
The word "Politics" comes from the Latin words "poly" meaning many,
and "tics" meaning bloodsucking parasites.
I know, I know. The above is *NOT* accurate pertaining to origins. It
is however accurate pertaining to politics.
- - - - -
dd
<bubba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Certainly the 'winner' of the election will be Gore or Bush. My
> opinion is that the country will be a 'loser' with either. Granted
> the degree of loss that will result from which is elected is arguable
> but I feel neither will be 'good' for the country as a whole.
>
And the winner will be Bush. The DUI thing clearly shows
that Gore is desperate. This sort of thing can cut both
ways; you don't use it unless you figure you have nothing
to lose.
Can you imagine how scared some of these people must be?
For the last 8 years, the Clinton-Gore administration has
has used the IRS against its enemies, corrupted the Justice
Dept. and FBI, and in general launched an all-out war
against the institutions and traditions of this country.
Now they and their collaborators face the prospect of
being on the receiving end of what they have been dishing
out for the last 8 years. When Clinton used poison gas
on the children at Waco, and then burned them alive (while
machine-gunning anyone who tried to run out of the
burning building), he set the tone of the time: absolute,
merciless win-at-all-costs politics.
I can't imagine, for example, what it would feel like
to be Ms. Janet Reno, the Butcher of Waco, right now.
One of the most interesting things that will occur in
the coming years are the revelations from people who
are now free to speak openly. As bad as Clinton was,
I would bet we don't know half of it.
Bush himself in my opinion is something of an unknown
quantity. Its not clear if he will govern as his
father did (ugh), or more like Reagan. Yes, he is
a spoiled rich kid. But then, so was Theodore Roosevelt.
I'm expecting Bush to appoint some real, hard-core
right-wing extremists to the Supreme Court and repeal
some of the more oppressive gun laws. If he gets that
much accomplished, I'll be happy.
Jerry Morgan
>In article <ul760tk6csrg5m612...@news.alt.net>, Jerry Morgan
><bubba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Certainly the 'winner' of the election will be Gore or Bush. My
>> opinion is that the country will be a 'loser' with either. Granted
>> the degree of loss that will result from which is elected is arguable
>> but I feel neither will be 'good' for the country as a whole.
>>
>
>And the winner will be Bush. The DUI thing clearly shows
>that Gore is desperate. This sort of thing can cut both
>ways; you don't use it unless you figure you have nothing
>to lose.
Whether Gore's campaign workers had *anything* to do with the release
of 'Dubya's DUI Record' has not even been suggested by Dubya's
campaign, let alone proven by anyone. The fact that Gore's campaign
has totally avoided any attempt to 'use' the DUI offense suggests it
wasn't involved.
>Can you imagine how scared some of these people must be?
>For the last 8 years, the Clinton-Gore administration has
>has used the IRS against its enemies, corrupted the Justice
>Dept. and FBI, and in general launched an all-out war
>against the institutions and traditions of this country.
I gotta' admit it, the 8 years of the Clinton/Gore administration has
resulted in a considerable bit of corruption, abuses and other nasty
things. However, I also gotta' admit that the current administration
can't hold a candle to the Reagan/Bush administration in the came
context and which holds the second place corruption record behind
Nixon/Agnew/Ford.
<snip Waco whacko stuff>
>Bush himself in my opinion is something of an unknown
>quantity. Its not clear if he will govern as his
>father did (ugh), or more like Reagan. Yes, he is
>a spoiled rich kid. But then, so was Theodore Roosevelt.
I dunno', I prefer politicians that have actually worked at least a
few years in a real job, lived like real people and actually had to
choose between going out to dinner or saving the money for gasoline to
get to work next week. In other words I prefer 'real people' and
neither the Democrats or Republicans are offering such a candidate.
>I'm expecting Bush to appoint some real, hard-core
>right-wing extremists to the Supreme Court and repeal
>some of the more oppressive gun laws. If he gets that
>much accomplished, I'll be happy.
I can certainly agree on there being a need for over-turning
oppressive laws, whether they deal with guns or vaginas for that
matter. In regards to individual rights, neither Gore or Bush impress
me, at all. Both have shown a desire to censor 'free speech' and in
my book that's an automatic 'turn off' - big time.
Michael A. Clem
"terry" <t...@crosstel.net> wrote:
> I've been arguing this point with my friends and acquaintances for some time
> now. What I've told them is that I'm not wasting my vote, I'm investing it!
> The pay-off may not come for several more election cycles, but when it does,
> it will have been worth the wait!
> I'll be voting Libertarian in every option available....
>
> Terry
>
Thanks for the vote of support, Terry. It's been a long process, but we ARE
making slow and steady progress.
Michael A. Clem
Libertarian Candidate for U.S. Congress, District One
http://www.clemforcongress.org
> Michael A. Clem <macs...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8tv0om$nre$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <bje50tg49fjb5ni57...@news.alt.net>,
> > Jerry Morgan <bubba...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > On 03 Nov 2000 05:54:51 GMT, jenkins...@aol.come.on (Dan) wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >I must say that I have agreed with many things Harry Browne has said
> > and if
> > > >this election wasn't so close I might have thrown my weight behind
> > him. But..
> > > >this election has too much at stake for me to let the chips fall.
> > >
> > > What better time than now with so much at stake to vote for Browne?
>
>