But, taxes and promises of lowering taxes or not raising them is not the purpose of this essay. Surely the writer isn't the only person who realizes what Mr. Bush really said. As a matter of fact, maybe we need to interpret additional information given during the segment aired on the Kansas City, MO, Channel 4 evening Newscast on July 26, l996.

First of all, the reporters reminded us all that Bush and Dole were bitter enemies in l988. All of you remember their bitterness and quite apparent dislike for one another. Dole became quite vehement when he lost the primaries to Bush.

Then, when Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton, Dole acted as if he were really choked up. Maybe he was but was it because Bush was defeated or, for a more personal reason, because he felt his party was losing power and, therefore, he would lose power?

It was just sooo touching to hear Dole trying to speak while under the great stress of his, then good buddy, Bush, leaving the presidency. Yeah, right, and the writer has a bridge he'd like to sell.

Again, we are being subjected to political crap and game playing. And, we have witnessed, even though a thoroughly boring person and a terrible speaker, Dole can act. And, maybe that's the key to politics. Maybe all politicians secretly take acting classes since they seem to rely so heavily on acting skills while blatantly lying to the public.

Why does the writer state that? Dole and Bush actually seemed to hate one another during the primaries in 87. Either they actually did hate one another or they were engaged in some scam against the public by pretending to hate one another.

But, then, later on, like all good party members, Dole got behind Bush. The Republican Party eventually united, at least in the public's view, and, maybe behind closed doors, Bush and Dole kissed and made up (tell the writer that's not a nauseating image).

The end result? The public was fooled by professional politicians, which could be synonymous for professional actors, maybe even professional scam artists. The evidence is mounting daily that this is the case. Think about the title of this essay, Bush's answer to tax presentations during campaigns, "Not if you play it right."

What Bush really stated with this response is, providing a politician does it right (to meet his own self-serving or party purposes), he can manipulate the public's thoughts long enough to get in office. He can take advantage as long as he plays it right by not screwing up on an issue to the extent that the public turns against him.

Hm, where in Bush's response did any thoughts of doing good for the public show up? Well, there weren't any. Bush's only concern seemed to be more of a warning for Dole to make sure he didn't screw up any promises concerning taxes. Like, maybe he figured Dole isn't smart enough to present a tax package in such a manner that would result in the public getting behind him.

So, in the writer's mind, Bush knows he screwed up by a tax increase during his administration. Bush also knows that a primary concern of the public is the high cost of taxes. He also knows that any references to taxes must be done exactly right or the politician is doomed.

He apparently knows, and it hurts to state it, that the public can be manipulated by politicians who seem to be concerned with the public's welfare. And, he seems to suspect that Dole isn't up to the challenge. Otherwise, why the statement that might easily be taken for a public warning? (Hm, ever wonder what politicians say behind closed doors?)

Personally, the writer thinks both Bush, Dole and any politicians who behave as they have should never be allowed to be in the public's eye again. As far as the writer is concerned, 'like' politicians should be ostracized to the degree they willingly become hermits and leave the rest of us alone.

Or, perhaps when they are caught in lies, which seems to happen with increasing regularity, they are sent to a confinement where there are subjected to others exactly like them. You know, criminals, liars and cheats, conmen, and, in general, people who don't have any real social conscience to speak of. Maybe even exiling them to a specific location far from other people would be the answer.

Say, isn't that part of the means that our mother country used to settle this country? So, maybe being from a family which can be traced back to the very early days of our nation isn't a good character reference. How about that for a thought that causes you to go, Hmmm?

A real source of concern for the writer is wondering how long it is going to take the public, that's all of us, to wake up and demand that politicians stop their political game-playing and behave as leaders of a nation should, with integrity and 'real' concern for their constituencies?

Will any of us live long enough to experience the certainty that the politicians who hold offices from the township level on up are people of such high integrity that lying and cheating are foreign to them? The writer thinks not.

And, Ladies and Gentlemen, until integrity, good old honesty prevails, we do not really have a democracy as our Republic should be. Now, is that food for thought, or what?