RR> A vote for _anyone_ without a good chance of winning is the same as
RR> staying home and blowing soap bubbles. Amusing but ineffective. It
RR> denies a real opponent a much-needed vote and assures the other side
RR> that they face no real threat. Wow, what a decisive blow that is.
If the probability of getting elected is your criteria, you'd be voting 
for Clinton. Surely, *that* isn't what you're advocating, is it?
RR> Anyone who throws away a chance to slow the juggernaut is guilty of
RR> allowing it to succeed. If Clinton gets back in he will have no
RR> reason to hold back. He'll be a lame duck and crow about his
RR> "mandate" to do more. Worse, he will undoubedly have a coat-tail
RR> effect if he succeeds. When the Dems get back at the wheel they will
RR> undo everything that has so far been won.
Forget the coat-tail effect. Clinton's "popularity" is based solely on 
his comparison to Dole. Next year's Congress is going to be more 
Republican, more conservative and more pro-gun than any in the last 
thirty years.
Twice as many Democrats are retiring as Republicans. Four times as many 
liberals are retiring and most of the retirees in *both* parties are 
anti-gun. In addition, the primaries are already going our way. In 
general, the more pro-gun candidates are winning contested primaries.
Finally, the contributions to candidates are running heavily in our 
favor. Our guys will be able to outspend the other side.
___
 X RM 1.3 02881 X Walk softly and carry a big gun.
--- Maximus/2 2.02
---------------