Three times in the last 24hrs I've seen some horrid member of the govt here waxing lyrical about great GWB will be for Australia. Why: something about trade, of course. The event was uniformly described as 'the election of a conservative government in the United States' -- so I thought you'd like to know that some people could see a difference.
Catherine
At 14:23 15/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Catherine Driscoll wrote:
>
>>I bet I don't get many more laughs out of GWB
>
>You may be right. A period of national healing and bipartisan
>purposefulness has begun. Further evidence that Nathan's great movement to
>democratize the franchise has been put on hold appeared in today's New
>York Times:
>
>>"Bipartisanship isn't an option any more," Mr. Daschle said. "It's a
>>requirement." The Rev. Jesse Jackson was one of those who called the
>>governor to wish him well. Ms. Hughes said the two men spoke of the need
>>for healing and for election reform. "He was very gracious," she said of
>>Mr. Jackson. "They had a very good conversation."
>
>Jackson's gesture is a perfect example of why the Democrats are a
>positively malignant force and not a mere disappointment - keeping the
>masses in the fold, and papering over the legitimation crisis.
>
>Doug