>> I found it interesting that Gore's home state (where he was a

Senator?) overwhelmingly went for Bush. The people that knew the most

about Gore supported him the least. Bush was vice-versa - his state was

overwhelmingly in favor of him. The people that knew the most about Bush

supported him the most. I see a message in that. <<

What message is that? I don't know for sure, but I'll bet Gore was a

senator longer than Bush was governor of Texas.

The message I see is that Texas, on the whole, is a Republican

stronghold and Tennessee less so. No more and no less.

Why is Texas a Republican stronghold?

It may be still true today, maybe not, but for the longest time Texas

state government electors weren't paid. Therefore, only those who could

afford to run did run. Obviously, only the very rich could run, and the

very rich tend to be very conservative.

> Sort of like I was concerned about China pumping huge amounts of money

> into Clinton's campaign. Not that there was any conspiracy there (I

> haven't seen any conclusive proof). But, when a foreign power, of a

> conflicting philosophical viewpoint, supports one of our politicians

> so strongly it makes me wonder why? Does that politician embrace their

> philosophy and has just hidden it from us?

I assume you had these concerns about both

Reagan/Bush/Poindexter/North/Casey/McFarlane and Iran/Contra.

Reagan, after steadfastly saying that he would never make concessions to

terrorists, then denied such a thing when the story surfaced. Later on,

when the evidence was overwhelming, admitted that secret diplomatic

contacts had been going on for nearly 18 months. Oops! Robert McFarlane

had visited Khomeini on the sly with, among other things, a Bible

personally signed by Reagan.

This is a conspiracy that ** has ** been proven.

Bill Anderson