MA>    It would be interesting!  As I have stated many times, I am not a
MA>Republican, but I do find the prospect of Gingrich as President witha
MA>Republican majority in both the House and the Senate an attractive
MA>proposition.  After having literally decades of this type of control by
MA>the Democratic party I would actually like to see the Republican Party
MA>have a term or two of the same type of control.  Though I believe both
MA>positives and negatives will be result, I would be eager to see wht
MA>actually happened.
RP>At this point I'd say it's no mystery - we'd see what we see right now,
RP>possibly a lot worse.
 
       I think things would change a bit, most certianly a few
priorities would change.  Still, Republicans have not had clear control
of both houses and the presidency since early in the century and I
think it would do the nation good to give them, at least for two years,
a clear shot at dealing with the nation's problems.  
RP>Don't know whether anybody's noticed or not, but a lot of those new
RP>Republican politicos who used to be DemonRats are still DemonRats at
RP>heart, making the Republican party more and more the new liberal
RP>Democrat party.  It is also as committed to one-worldism ala the UN as
RP>the DemonRats are.
 
      I don't know about all that.  I do know that Republicans in
Congress have done a far better job of following the party leadership
than Democrats in Congress have over the last two sessions.  Defections
on issues are rare and ususally more than offset by southern Democrats
who tend to be more Republican than Democratic.
      As for international policy, it seems to me that Democrats and
Republicans have pretty much had an overall bi-partisan foreign policy
since well before the Second World War.  Both parties seek to maintain
a global military presence, are quick to use intervention and the
threat of intervention as an instrument of diplomacy, and are
supportive of entangling and cross compromising alliances.  While the
Republicans, in general, do seem to place a greater priority on
funding new weapons programs, Democrats really aren't that far behind.
RP>Unless 3rd parties manage to take up the slack, I fully expect this nex
RP>round of mid-term elections to set a new record low in voter turnout,
RP>disgruntled Republican voters and Reagan Democrats choosing to stay hom
RP>in the face of equal evils.
 
       Too much money and too much influence can be exercised by the
two dominate parties to permit a third party to grab a foothold.  even
Perot, who had a respectable showing in the presidential race in 1992
was barred from participating in the debates by the major parties in
1996 thereby discrediting his ability to appear to be a legitimate
contender.  Harry Brown, the Libertarian Party nominee, despite the
support of a true national party and having defeated the major party
hurdles against anyone else appearing on the ballot in all 50 states
was also denied access to open debate.
       Both these parties realize that a third contender threatens
their grip on power and they have no desire to share power with anyone
and use the law, federal funding, access to communications, and any
other means available to them to discredit, demean, and exclude any
challanger from open debate.
 
                                             Mike Angwin
--- RBBSMail/386 v0.997
---------------