From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #185 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Thursday, September 24 1998 Volume 02 : Number 185 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:27:23 -0400 From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises Inc and Shire.Net" Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in >> >>I think the best that can be said about the whole process is that at >>least as long as they are in Sodom-on-the-Potomac screwing each other, >>it occupies them too much to be screwing us, eh? So hopefully they >>will drag all this out for quite a while. >> > > So you basically believe that, under the current set of > elected leaders (House, Senate, Executive) the Constitution > *won't* function. Is that more or less right? > It hasn't been functioning for years. The Constitution has been used for years to "approve" all sorts of things that it was not meant to be involved in: * gun control * abortion * entitlement programs to name a few. I am not wanting to debate gun control or abortion or whatever -- my point today is that these issues are either enti-constitutional or have nothing to do with the Constitution but that the Constitution has been used to either approve them (abortion, entitlements) or has been ignored (gun control) for a long time now. Chad - --------------------------------------------------------------- Chad Leigh Pengar Enterprises, Inc and Shire.Net chad@pengar.com info@pengar.com info@shire.net Full service WWW services from just space to complete sites. Low cost virtual servers. DB integration. Email forwarding -- Permanent Email Addresses. POP3 and IMAP Email Accounts. mailto:info@shire.net for any of these. *************** Macintosh: It Just Works ****************** - --------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 13:45:11 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in > >The Constitution has been used for years to "approve" all sorts of things >that it was not meant to be involved in: > >* gun control >* abortion >* entitlement programs > I agree, 100%, that the Constitution hasn't effectively stopped the slow accretion of Federal power. The 2nd Amendment is ignored, and abortion and entitlement programs are both Statism run rampant. So, I take your point. I am, in essence, an anti-Statist. That's my politics, because that's the politics that seems neccessary this half-century. Parts of the Constitution still work, the transfer of power after elections is orderly, the 1st Amendment is taken seriously, there has been a seesawing of power back and forth between the three branches. The question right now is: if a man perjures himself (a felony) is he fit to continue to serve as President and if he isn't fit, can the Constitutional mechanisms for his removal be cranked up enough to remove him, or at least attempt to remove him? If we can't do that, then we have to add the impeachment process to the set of mechanisms considered faulty, probably broken completely. If its all media, polling, back room politicing, etc. and *no* respect for the law, then we have taken one giant step towards being Mexico. Crank up the offshore accounts, a wink and a nod will go a long way, and *nobody* will attempt to prosecute politically powerful people. ciao, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:33:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > > > >I think the best that can be said about the whole process is that at > >least as long as they are in Sodom-on-the-Potomac screwing each other, > >it occupies them too much to be screwing us, eh? So hopefully they > >will drag all this out for quite a while. > > > > So you basically believe that, under the current set of > elected leaders (House, Senate, Executive) the Constitution > *won't* function. Is that more or less right? > > ciao, > > jcurtis I think they might go through all the motions, and pay lip service to the procedural aspects of things. Substance will be ignored. And even if impeached, it will only happen if there is a guarantee that he will be acquitted by the Senate. And I have Franklin that says THAT (acquittal) is a done deal. And as an aside, we're not supposed to have elected "leaders", as in "fuhrers". We're supposed to have elected "representatives", as in "constitutional republic". See, even you are making Freudian slips. In short, the Constitution will not function when its functionaries are corrupt, and the people whom it is supposed to protect are so morally bankrupt they don't know the difference between lying and telling the truth. The majority of the American adult people simply have no moral compass. Without that, the Constitution might as well be toilet paper for all the good it will do. It will take a child to point out they have no clothes on. Stay low, keep moving, watch your six. Harry - ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I don't think the son-of-a-bitch knows the difference between lying and telling the truth." Former President Harry Truman about Richard Nixon. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > I think that this is an interesting watermark on the route either > towards or away from returning us to a Constitutional Republic. I think we passed that the first Tuesday in November, 1996. That was the watershed election. The 1994 elections slowed the downward slide. 1996 elections determined which way things were going to play out for this generation. This stuff is just the band on the afterdeck of the Titanic playing, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead, You Rascal, You" as we continue listing to port. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. --John Adams - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 11:48:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in On Wed, 23 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > I think that this is an interesting watermark on the route either > towards or away from returning us to a Constitutional Republic. I think we passed that the first Tuesday in November, 1996. That was the watershed election. The 1994 elections slowed the downward slide. 1996 elections determined which way things were going to play out for this generation. This stuff is just the band on the afterdeck of the Titanic playing, "I'll Be Glad When You're Dead, You Rascal, You" as we continue listing to port. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. --John Adams - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:37:09 -0500 (CDT) From: Paul M Watson Subject: The Konformist Screwed By George? (fwd) - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 16:16:01 EDT From: Robalini@aol.com To: undisclosed-recipients: ; Subject: The Konformist Screwed By George? I have yet to see the latest issue of George on the newsstands, but an article in it that highly profiled The Konformist was apparently killed. The article, from my understanding, was of conspiracy movers and shakers: it was to profile myself along with writer Alex Constantine, Richard Metzger of Disinformation, Adam Parfrey of Feral House, and Kenn Thomas of Steamshovel Press. In addition, pictures of Parfrey and myself were to be included. Among the theories that were supposed to be mentioned were JonBenet Ramsey's death being part of CIA mind kontrol experiments and blackmail operations, the nuclear industry's push for food irradiation, the L.A. riots being instigated by LAPD and CIA agent provacateur's, the connection of well-connected Mafia in the murders and frame-ups of the O.J. Simpson case, The Oklahoma City Bombing being a government job to scapegoat the Patriot movement, and the evidence of a ancient city on Mars. More perplexing, the article was written by Jon Vankin, about as excellent of a writer as you'll find on the planet. Vankin at his worst (which isn't often) is as good as George is normally at its best. He also is the premier conspiracy expert, and as the issue deals with con theory, an omission of an article by him is glaring. I don't have all the facts yet, but I will get them. As I said, I haven't even seen the issue. I called up the George article editor today, who wasn't in, but they said that Vankin had just called as well, which means he is as surprised by the development as I am. My personal hunch is George wimped out. I think the stuff that was being discussed went way over their heads. Considering John F. Kennedy Jr. is the Editor-In-Chief, that isn't saying much. In the meantime, I encourage you all not to by the issue. Even better, I encourage you to rip it off. Robert Sterling Editor, The Konformist http://www.konformist.com - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 98 17:24:01 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Exicite/Harris Poll (fwd) On Sep 23, Richard Vaughan, Esq. wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Results from Harris Online Poll - swing by and add a nail to Clinton's coffin. Do You Think Clinton Can Remain Effective if He Serves out His Term? yes -- he's a strong leader, this scandal won't change that 38% => 2880 votes no -- Starr's investigation has humiliated Clinton and has undermined his authority and credibility 54% => 4090 votes unsure -- it will take time to see if the scandal "sticks" to Clinton or if it will fade from the people's minds 8% => 597 votes Current Vote Tally: 7567 http://nt.excite.com/poll/ - -- Vote for Lorean Bobbitt for White House Intern! [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 98 17:23:23 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: AdvAM: What Should America Be? (second try) (fwd) On Sep 23, Kevin McGehee wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] The ADVANCE AMERICA Network (c) 1998 KEVIN McGEHEE North Pole, Alaska mcgehee@mosquitonet.com http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/ Permission granted to anyone wishing to forward, redistribute, or broadcast this article WITH FULL ATTRIBUTION. ================================================================ WHAT SHOULD AMERICA BE? Our nation was founded on some ideas that we take for granted, but which people 225 years ago thought were radical and revolutionary. Even today in most nations the fundamental concepts that formed the basis of our government are elusive dreams for some far-off future, completely unrealizable within the lifetimes of their citizens. One idea that was revolutionary for the colonists of the 1770s was the elimination of the hereditary ruler. To people whose ancestors had for generations sworn allegiance to a crowned head -- a living man or woman who personified the nation -- the prospect of owing their allegiance to a flag or a piece of parchment bearing a written Constitution was like walking across a glass bridge hundreds of feet above the ground. Intellectually they might know it would work, but viscerally they were certain that they were stepping out onto thin air, inviting disaster. Monarchy still exists in many countries, though in most the powers of government have been handed over to elected parliaments. Still, the crowned head in such a country is "by the grace of God" sovereign over the nation and the people. The forms by which laws are made do not exalt the people as the source of the law, but the Crown. In practical terms there's little difference, in principle they're worlds apart -- and if Australia follows through on its recent vote to become a republic, the people there will find they have some adjusting to do. But even in some nominal republics, the source of the law is the people only in name, while in practice the law issues from the top down. So-called "banana republics" are the most obvious of these, countries where the rulers maintain power by pandering to emotion, charming the masses, breeding a cult of personality -- yet governance is by decree, usually for the ruler's own reasons but sold to the masses through careful propagandizing. In a "banana republic" the masses are poorly educated, if not almost universally illiterate, so the propaganda is pretty straightforward. In wealthier, more sophisticated countries, a "banana republic" type of regime must be much more subtle. Clearly, the obvious difference between colonial America and the independent federal republic that arose on these shores after the revolution, isn't the *real* difference. In fact, many monarchies are nearly as stable and free as our republic, while many republics are unstable and decidedly unfree. The real differences have less to do with the forms than with the priorities. There is a book out recently, the title of which escapes me as I sit before my computer composing this, but it's the first-ever scholarly look at one of the most essential priorities for a stable, free society, whether ruled over by a figurehead monarch or a written Constitution: the right of property. It's been written up in *National Review* and I have yet to read the book, but if it lives up to its reviews it may deserve to be added to any list of required reading that includes the Federalist Papers, deTocqueville, and Blackstone. My apologies for not having the title or other information. I'll have to read it and do a review of my own for the Advance America Network. During "The Current Situation" I've typed out a few comments about the importance of the Rule of Law, and how it's being undermined. Like the right of property, the Rule of Law is something that has been so much taken for granted (and the need for it taken for granted) that little has been said until the last few years about it -- what it is, what it means, and why it's necessary. Both are principles that should be taught to youngsters from the earliest ages, because they help to explain so much of what makes America America, and why so much of the rest of the world wants to be just like America (or to come here, anyway). What the Rule of Law means is the absence of privilege. Only under the Rule of Law can TRUE equality -- equality before the law -- exist. If the Rule of Law is undermined or abolished, those who at that time hold the reins of government will be able to establish themselves as the Few Who Make the Rules, while the rest of us become the Many Who Must Obey. Human nature prescribes that there can only be two kinds of society: those governed by laws which apply to everyone, or those governed by a Few (or One) to whom no law applies. In England, the Magna Carta agreed to by King John established for the first time that even a man who was "by the grace of God King" could be held subject to the law. It was the colonists' fear that this principle might be rescinded by a King that led them to separate from Britain and establish our republic. If our head of state owed his office to the law rather than the grace of God, they reasoned, he would be more likely to uphold the law for his own sake if for no other. I chanced to have a conversation by e-mail with a friend who commented on the habitual lack of tolerance among members of what I have called the "infantile Left" -- people who, though they might be quite advanced in years, never matured enough to realize that certain rules of personal conduct are necessary and good. In composing a reply to my friend I had a very interesting insight: What the people on the "infantile Left" want is not so much to revise the standards of proper conduct to suit themselves, as to abolish them completely. They want to be free of any standards, while having the power to impose standards on everyone else. We can't disapprove, even privately, of what goes on between "consenting adults" no matter the public-health consequences of their conduct, but they can legislate against our petty vices, inveigh against our dietary preferences, and attack us personally in public for espousing our opinions. Is it any wonder they are so devoted to elected officials who hold the Rule of Law in contempt? To answer the question of the title, America should be what it was meant to be -- a nation ruled by laws, not personalities; a society where the one kind of equality that matters, equality before the law, is the one we revere and protect at all costs; a civilization that continues to be what it was 220 years ago: the uncontested leader in fostering real freedom, real dignity, and real prosperity. A republic, a promised land, America. We still have what it takes, if we will do what needs to be done. - -30- September 22, 1998 ================================================================ **Visit the AdvAM/AdvAK archives** http://www.mosquitonet.com/~mcgehee/advance.htm The views expressed herein are entirely those of the author(s), and do not reflect those of any person or group with whom the author(s) may be affiliated, unless explicitly labelled as doing so. [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 21:51:44 -0700 From: "Lew Glendenning" Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in In my political lifetime, we have had 3 increasingly dishonest presidents, the last two covered up by the press: Nixon, Kennedy and Clinton. Can't be sure the others just weren't caught 8) This seems to me to be evidence of serious instability. Heard some talking head saying how the president's impeachment/resignation would destabilize the political system. Seems to me backwards: unConstitutional behavior by the gov -> big gov -> bad gov -> no credability + instability. Big gov == corrupt gov, or at least corrupt on a scale large enough to do more than annoy the citizens. No human institutions can be designed to withstand the corrosive effects of big money flows, whether illegal (cocaine, gambling, ...) or re-directed taxes. Impeaching Clinton is merely the first step in cleaning the mess in DC up: Lots of gov people have helped Clinton in his criminality. Republicans haven't been too anxious to dig into the problems, so you have to expect a lot of them have been trying to match Clinton's ways. Lew - -----Original Message----- From: John Curtis To: roc@lists.xmission.com Date: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in > >> >>The Constitution has been used for years to "approve" all sorts of things >>that it was not meant to be involved in: >> >>* gun control >>* abortion >>* entitlement programs >> > I agree, 100%, that the Constitution hasn't effectively stopped > the slow accretion of Federal power. The 2nd Amendment is ignored, > and abortion and entitlement programs are both Statism run > rampant. So, I take your point. > > I am, in essence, an anti-Statist. That's my politics, because > that's the politics that seems neccessary this half-century. > Parts of the Constitution still work, the transfer of power after > elections is orderly, the 1st Amendment is taken seriously, there > has been a seesawing of power back and forth between the three > branches. The question right now is: if a man perjures himself > (a felony) is he fit to continue to serve as President and if he > isn't fit, can the Constitutional mechanisms for his removal be > cranked up enough to remove him, or at least attempt to remove > him? If we can't do that, then we have to add the impeachment > process to the set of mechanisms considered faulty, probably broken > completely. > > If its all media, polling, back room politicing, etc. and > *no* respect for the law, then we have taken one giant step > towards being Mexico. Crank up the offshore accounts, a > wink and a nod will go a long way, and *nobody* will attempt to > prosecute politically powerful people. > > ciao, > > jcurtis > >- > - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998 22:25:33 -0700 From: Kenneth Mitchell Subject: Re: A Humor Bug At 11:02 PM 9/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >At 23:44 09/22/1998 -0400, you wrote: >>>If you have access to Micro Soft Word make type "I want Clinton to >>>resign." (Without the " ") Highlight the words and click on the >>>Thesaurus. See what it says. >>> >> >>What should it say? Mine says replace with I.D. ? >> Close, but no cigar. I believe it only works in Word 97, and possibly, Word 98 for the Mac. Type "I'd like Clinton to resign", and the thesaurus suggests "I'll drink to that" as a possible replacement. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA kmitchel@gvn.net 916-955-9152 (vm) 916-729-0966 (fax) - --------------http://www.gvn.net/~creative/------------------------ "George Washington said it as, 'Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.' Government must be restricted as much as possible to do as little as possible because unlike all other institutions, every task given to it is the occasion for the use of force. It is enough if government attempts to limit the evil actions that individuals commit against each other. If it does more, either in attempting to restrict the evils that individuals do to themselves, or if government attempts to use its force to engineer positive good, it increases occasions for the creation of power centers which can be captured by amoral or immoral persons who will corrupt such power to their own ends." J. Neil Schulman "Self Control, Not Gun Control" - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Founding Member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"! - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:30:48 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in > >Big gov == corrupt gov, or at least corrupt on a scale large enough to do >more than annoy the citizens. > >No human institutions can be designed to withstand the corrosive effects of >big money flows, whether illegal (cocaine, gambling, ...) or re-directed >taxes. > >Impeaching Clinton is merely the first step in cleaning the mess in DC up: >Lots of gov people have helped Clinton in his criminality. Republicans >haven't been too anxious to dig into the problems, so you have to expect a >lot of them have been trying to match Clinton's ways. > > I pretty much agree. Impeaching Clinton (even if he wasn't convicted) would be a positive step towards delineating what is unacceptable behavior. If we can't impeach him, that is a very bad sign. Some of the bad things (Mena, CIA drug involvement, etc.) are unlikely to see the light of day. We need another set of Church hearings to slap those guys down. If we could just make government 30-40% smaller, that would help right away. I don't really believe that the R's are going to do this, as they are moderate, mainstream, and just as mendacious as anybody else. ciao, jcurtis P.S. primary problem -> nearly total indifference on the part of the public. The media does its job well, it tells us what to think. - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 08:45:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Harry Barnett Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in On Thu, 24 Sep 1998, John Curtis wrote: > P.S. primary problem -> nearly total indifference on the part > of the public. The media does its job well, it > tells us what to think. I don't think there is anywhere near "total indifference" on the part of the public. A wild guess tells me maybe 20% are angered to the point of outrage. Maybe another 20% are very upset and concerned. It is impossible to get an accurate reading on this because for an accurate sense of the nationwide attitude we are dependent on the media to convey it to us. And the Media does NOT publish facts. So we really don't know what the story is out there outside of our own little circle of friends, acquaintances, family, and associates. What we do know as fact is that supposedly there existed a sufficient majority in November of 1996 to install Slick Willie and his Host of Whores in the Federal Government. That they are there is a fact. That they are LEGITIMATELY there is a stale issue. That whether they remain there is legitimate under the Constitution is the "Issue of the Day". Fretting and fussing and fuming over conjecture as to how events totally outside my power to control or affect will finally be resolved is not the way I choose to live my life. You can characterize it as "indifference" if you wish. I call it being realistic. OBTW, I live in Washington, where my Senators are Gorton (whose primary purpose in office is to ensure that Mariners do not leave Seattle), Murray (who doesn't want to lose her place in line to drop on her knees and unzip Slick Willie), an my Rep is Adam Smith (who talks out of any side of his mouth that he thinks you want to here, but always votes Socialist, while he is green with envy of Lewinsky). Trust me when I say that I KNOW that I am totally unrepresented in DC. I really don't know how many people out there feel strongly about the situation. I just know in my own itty-bitty little circle (compared to 250 million people) that their "profile of indifference" is radically different from that portrayed by the Media as that of the "majority". Thus I and my associates are marginalized as part of the "lunatic fringe", the "vast right-wing conspiracy". Because of the partitioning, "separation" it was called in the Nazi days, the marginalizing of any point of view other than the Socialist Party Line by the Media (and the NEA, incidentally, working hard at producing the next generation of Good Little Socialists) we are all splintered into little tribal fragments. There is no common sense of spirit, and faith that a sufficient number of others are in the Good Fight with us to succeed. The Founding Fathers pitched tea into the harbor. We need a similar meaningful public display of pitching newpapers, newsmagazines, and television sets into the harbor. At a minimum. Maybe it wouldn't do any good in the long run. But it would sure boost morale. - ----- Harry Barnett - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:49:49 -0600 From: sabutigo@teleport.com Subject: Re: A Humor Bug At 10:25 PM 9/23/98 -0700, you wrote: >At 11:02 PM 9/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >>At 23:44 09/22/1998 -0400, you wrote: >>>>If you have access to Micro Soft Word make type "I want Clinton to >>>>resign." (Without the " ") Highlight the words and click on the >>>>Thesaurus. See what it says. >>>> >>> >>>What should it say? Mine says replace with I.D. ? >>> > >Close, but no cigar. I believe it only works in Word 97, and possibly, Word >98 for the Mac. Type "I'd like Clinton to resign", and the thesaurus >suggests "I'll drink to that" as a possible replacement. Mine (Word 3.11) said to replace with I.D., too, but the first word on the word list was "hypocritcal." I'll drink to THAT, too. S. Just because I have a short attention span doesn't mean - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 09:50:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Boyd Subject: Re: Jimmy Carter weighs in Harry, I agree with you about the media not diseminating facts. But I think the one case where we really and truly see the spirit of the populace is in a vote. Our last vote here in Washington was almost a record low turnout, doesnt that argue for widespread apathy? boyd - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 24 Sep 1998 10:20:31 -0700 From: Skip Leuschner Subject: The Linda Smith saga continues - she needs your help Background. Washington State runs its primary elections much later than most states, in mid-September. That leaves very little time for the victorious primary election candidates to raise new money and campaign for the November general election. =20 A short campaign system is not all bad for the voters, but when several challengers are vying for the nomination to run against an established incumbent, the short time between the primary and general elections can make the difference between victory and defeat for a cash-poor challenger. =20 That=92s precisely the case now for an honest, tough-minded, highly principled and independent-thinking conservative Congresswoman named Linda Smith. No doubt you=92ve heard of her because of her refusal to sell her soul for campaign contributions from PACs, lobbyists and corporations.=20 She was the victor in the recent Republican primary senate race by a=20 2-to-1 landslide (more on this later), and will now try to unseat=20 ultra-liberal, big-government, =93Mom in tennis shoes=94 senator Patty Murray, who has been rated by the conservative media as the 4th dumbest =93dim bulb=94 (their words, not mine) in the senate. Murray=92s thinki= ng=20 is shallow, her ideas are silly (e.g., federal government hire 100,000 new teachers to reduce class sizes across the nation, but no idea what it will cost and no proposal on how to pay for it), and her senate voting record reveals a =93whatever Bill Clinton and Senate Democratic leaders tell me to do=94 philosophy. I=92m sure she=92s an honest an= d sincere woman. She=92s just in over her head as a U.S. Senator, just=20 as her =93Mom in tennis shoes=94 campaign slogan implies.=20 Even so, Murray liberalism appeals to urban liberals in the Seattle-Puget Sound area and other urban centers across the state of WA. Murray got 46% of the vote statewide in the open primary election,=20 which leaves the door open for a conservative Linda Smith victory, but it=92s too close for comfort. There is clearly some serious and expensive campaigning to be done, and Linda is short of $. =20 But there is another story to be told here about Linda Smith=92s experience with the Republican leadership in this year's primary election cycle. =20 Republican leaders knew that Linda was not taking bribe money because she has made no secret of it. In fact, she=92s been pushing for=20 campaign finance reforms for everyone, as a member of the House of Representatives. When she first went to congress back in 1995, she became so disgusted with the attempted bribery implications of the lobbist and PAC activities, not to mention the out-of-control =93soft money=94 system, that she stopped taking this tainted money. She has refused to take a penny of this bribe money ever since, and she has=20 been quite vocal in her courageous philosophy that "Win or lose, I=20 will run my campaigns only with small contributions from individuals." This well-advertized policy, and her incessant calls for campaign finance reform have earned Linda Smith the wrath of Republican leaders in both the House and the Senate. But her supporters love her for it. According to the local paper, Linda raised nearly $2 million for her senate campaign, all in small contributions from more than 35,000 supporters. That=92s unprecedented!!! But that same newspaper report says she spent most of that on the contested primary election. Only $400,000 remains to start her campaign to unseat Senator Patty Murray, who had no primary election opponent, and has more than $1 million in her campaign warchest. =20 Based on the likelihood of her primary victory, Linda Smith shouldn=92t have had a primary election opponent either, except for the arm twisting by Senator Mitch McConnell, Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Committee to find another Republican to run against her. The problem was, Linda Smith is disliked nearly as much by the Republican leaders=20 in congress (for her high principles and tough-minded independence) as she is by the Democrats (for her unrelenting conservatism). =20 Republican leaders in the U.S. Senate simply DO NOT want Linda Smith=20 to win a senate seat, even if that means ultra-liberal Patty Murray stays. Not only is Linda too independent-minded for the senate=92s =93good ol=92 boys=92 club,=94 but for her to win a senate seat without t= aking bribe money would provoke an avalanche of unwelcome media attention on our corrupting campaign finance system. =20 Accordingly, Senator McConnell personally twisted the arms of other Republican congresscritters in WA to get them to run against Linda=20 Smith in the primary. And there was a unstated part to this strategy. Even if Linda won a contested primary, her campaign warchest (which depends entirely on small individual contributions, remember) would be depleted with too little time remaining before the general election to replenish it. Patty Murray would win. How=92s tha= t for =93Republican principle?=94 =20 But Senator McConnell ran into problems. Linda Smith is a superb campaigner with unbelievable energy, stamina and popular appeal, and=20 she has never lost an election. Since the other politicians from WA knew that, Senator McConnell=92s arm twisting didn=92t work so well. =20 Congressman George Nethercutt from Spokane (who took out Speaker Tom Foley in 1994) refused to run against Linda because he knew he=92d get whipped. Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn refused because she is in=20 line for leadership in the House of Representatives. It made no sense to her (or anyone else) to forego House leadership in order to become=20 a freshman senator. No other credible Repblican congresscritters were interested in losing an election for the Republican leadership either. =20 But McConnell finally found a sacrificial lamb to drain Linda=92s=20 warchest - Chris Bayley, a relatively unknown county prosecutor and former state legislator from the Puget Sound area. Bayley is also a $millionaire who was such a Republican loyalist that he was willing=20 to finance a losing primary campaign with his personal fortune if necessary. As it turned out, it cost him a cool $1 million. He=20 got only 3000 contributions to Linda Smith=92s 35,000, and lost the primary election by a 2-1 landslide. So much for the idea of=20 beating Linda Smith. =20 But Senator McConnell=92s anti-Smith strategy worked nicely on the financial side. Linda Smith now has only $400,000 left for her campaign against incumbent Patty Murray, who still has more than=20 $1 million, plus pledges of more from every liberal PAC as well as pledged support from the Democratic National Committee. Linda=20 Smith won=92t get any support from the Republican National Committee. They don't want her in the senate even if the people do. =20 Linda Smith must rebuild a million dollar warchest with small=20 individual contributions, and she must do it in 3-4 weeks. I=20 remember Linda telling me back in 1994 (after she won a history-making 3-week write-in primary campaign for congress) that she and her husband of 30 years were selling one of their cars and taking out a mortgage on their paid-off home to get her campaign started. That=92s commitment. That=92s Linda and Vern Smith. I suspect they=92ll be doing that again soon. (Incidentally, Vern is a railroad engineer - the real kind - a train driver). =20 With all that as background, I ask you to check out Linda=92s web page at . You=92ll find a long list of endorsers, including many that support the same hot-button issues that you and I support. =20 You=92ll also find a =93Contributions=94 section. Please use it. Lind= a needs $ help badly, and she needs it now. My check=92s in the mail. = =20 Linda Smith is as close as Independents can come to electing one of their own. She=92s hated by hard core Democrats and disliked by Republican leaders, but loved by the conservatives she represents. =20 She=92s a straight talker who says what she means, does what she says,=20 and calmly and honestly tells those who badger her over issues at her regular town meetings that they probably shouldn=92t vote for her. =20 In today=92s politics, it just doesn=92t get any better than that. =20 >From one who knows her well, we can=92t do better than Linda Smith. =20 She=92ll drive the good ol=92 boys in the U.S. Senate crazy and she could change that arrogant institution forever. And we just can=92t do worse than allowing Patty Murray to be reelected. =20 I=92m not on Linda=92s campaign staff. I=92m just one of her 35,000 sm= all contributors who is writing from the heart to ask you to join =93Linda=92= s Army.=94 We are out to prove that good candidates can win senate seats without selling their souls to PACs, lobbyists and corporations, and because we want at least one truly honest, courageous, principled and independent-thinking representative in the U.S. Senate. Won=92t you join us? =20 As indicated on Linda=92s web page, send contributions to: Committee to Elect Linda Smith PO BOX 65117 Vancouver, WA 98665 (Remember, FEC requires contributions over $200 to be accompanied by full information on yourself and your employment and employer) Thanks and best regards,=20 R. L. =93Skip=94 Leuschner, US Navy (Retired) Independent=20 Ridgefield, WA - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #185 *************************