What we want is a plan with a very high potential of success in turning as many voters as possible against the incumbent president. We have several months to carry out our plan. The question is: What is our plan; how can we effectively turn people against the President?

Bear with me on the below. Background is needed to understand the plan the Republican Party is using.

Have you ever listened to members of Congress debating a bill? Why is it that statements made by the opposing sides, including those of political and legal analysts, so often lead us to confusion rather than clarification?

How in the world can bills written in English be interpreted as differently as they are? Republicans give one interpretation of the proposed bill, the Democrats another. And, they are supposed to be the experts.

If the 'experts' are interpreting a bill differently, how can we, the public, understand what the bill's purpose is, let alone how it would go about meeting its purpose?

And, without understanding, how can we determine whether or not our governmental representatives are making the choice we would make? How do we know that our majoral wishes are being met?

Most of us get our information concerning bills from the media. Very few of us have the time or inclination to read each and every bill being proposed by one of our representatives. Shoot, they don't even read them.

Besides, bills are often thousands upon thousands of words in length. Apparently, congressmen not only like to hear themselves speak; they also like to leave their marks with thousands of non-essential words.

As if that is not enough, bills are written in typically confusing, governmental fashion (which figures since so many are lawyers). However, regardless of any training, it would seem that our congressmen's love of the written word not only confuses us, it also confuses them.

The result is we are virtually locked into a basic understanding of a bill to interpretations by politicians (and take their analysis with a grain of salt) and the media. This also includes the media's analysts and what each states the bill won't or won't do.

And, that is the rub. How do we know who to believe? Take the health care feform debate during the current administration. President Clinton, along with many other politicians, stated the proposed reforms were for the good of the majority of the people. It really sounded good.

Then, leading Republicans had their say. By their interpretation (no surprise here), the reforms were not going to help people; they were going to hurt the majority. One could only conclude from what they said that the proposed bill was just terrible for the good of Americans.

And, it seemed as if the various analysts interpreted what they heard or read based on their personal political lean- ings. Like the woman that is always speaking for the Re- publican party. What is her name - Matlin or something like that?

Anyway, being a closed-minded Republican fanatic as she is, her interpretations on any matter are simplified to - If a Republican says it, it's right and good but if a Democrat said it, he's wrong or just copying some Republican. Actually a very difficult person to listen to as she apparently believes she's the only person alive with any brain tissue. Reminds one of Rush Limbaugh, does she not? If either ever had an eclectic thought as an independent thinker, it would absolutely shock the world. But, enough digression.

As if that is not enough, we have had bills during our history which have been passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, only to have the president veto the bills. No, Mr. Clinton isn't the only president who has vetoed bills. The Republican Party may end up trying to cause us to believe he is but it isn't true.

A valid question is why are bills so open to different interpretations? Shouldn't any persons, assuming an average understanding of the English language, be able to read a bill and pick out exactly the same thoughts as being dominant?

Textbooks, operating manuals, medical instructions, and all other informative literature examples are written clearly and concisely so that any individuals who read the material interpret it as it was intended. So, what is the problem with legislative bills?

Could it be bills are purposely NOT written for clarity in easily understood language? The bills are usually written by people who have been trained as attorneys and/or trained in legal language. Thus, interpretation and control are in the hands of the politicians since most of us get lost reading lengthy documents written in legal or near-legal, governmental language.

Now, as most people know, it is not always the facts that win a legal case, whether it be criminal or civil, but, in- stead, the most effective argument presented by one attorney over another.

Thus, control, or power, is held by the attorney presenting the winning argument which is not necesarily as justice should dictate.

Or, in the case of bills, the power and control go to the party with the most effective argument to the public, whether presenting the facts concerning the bill or not. Or, it is simply a matter of which party has control in congress.

Why aren't bills written simply and any misinterpretation potential removed? Well, let's say that you wrote the laws that everyone must abide to in a language that only you understood. You would have complete control over interpretation of the laws and, therefore, over the people.

But, if another person learned the language, the laws would then become open to interpretation. And, debate could be the result. If the other person presented the most effective argument, people would abide by his interpretation and he would have the power. In either case, the people had little or no control.

With this scenario in mind, it is easily seen that it is possible for the greatest bill with the greatest good for the greatest number of people to NOT become law.

All it would take is for the pro-people to define the bill's purpose and methodology and, after their presentation, the people who opposed the bill could argue that the bill didn't do what the pro-people said.

If the opposition faction presented the most effective argument against passage of the bill into law (also would depend on a bi-partisan Congress, an absolute impossibility), the bill would fall by the wayside. Also, if the majoral party in either the House or the Senate wanted the bill, regardless of who had the most effective argument, it could simply vote for it and pass it.

And, to add to this for explanation purposes, one way to win or defeat, depending on one's perspective, is to discredit the opposition. That, sadly, is a tool used often by politicians and people who are extremely poor at debate but good at hood-winking the public (Hey, doesn't that just about cover them all).

We now have the basis for answering the question of what we cold do to turn people against the incumbent president.

If we were the current Republican party during this election year, we could simply put forth bill after bill to the Pres- ident. Since our party has basic control in Congress, we could be fairly assured that the bill would pass through the House and Senate.

At the same time, since we know the President's attitude concerning certain issues, we could write and present the bills with a near 100 percent assurance that the President would veto them.

The majority of the people could be convinced by the Republican Party and its media supporters and non-thinkers like the two mentioned above, that the bills would have been good for them. That only takes the most convincing argument and inflaming people against the President Clinton's actions.

The truth could be (and, the writer is certain we all want the truth), however, that no president, past, present, or future would have allowed any of the bills to become law. At any rate, the President, because he vetoed certain bills that the public had had been misled into believing were good, would be the bad guy in the public's eye.

Granted, this may seem farfetched but is it? After considering the comments along with the basic dirty pool played in the political arena, the conclusion of the author was that the above could be a most effective plan, providing the dirty pool didn't backfire on the Republican Party.

Voters could be swayed against a man who have become a relatively popular president, one that has earned the respect of many simply by having to battle and win against the Republican's opposition and accusations since his term began.

It would be in our best interests if we closely observe and analyze the upcoming political activities. If many bills are presented and vetoed by President Clinton, we must make sure we understand the bills and the reasons the bills were vetoed.

WE must not rely on the words of various politicians and current analysts' interpretations. It is true faith moves mountains but we can't always base the right person or party getting into office on faith alone. We have had too many crooks in offices in our sometimes tarnished history.

Maybe we need to demand that completely independent organizations analyze any bill under debate and put every major clause in simple, everyday language. Then, that organization could present paragraph by paragraph, if necessary, precisely what the bill means to the people.

This would be a tall order which would require our participation but how else are we to get the truth consistently instead of just a winning argument or a majoral vote which is against the public's best interest?

And, Ladies and Gentlemen, we must have the truth if we are to make good decisions concerning politicians. If our government is too complex or too power-mad to give us the simple truth, then we need to change the manner through which bills become laws. Besides. If politicans can boil a bill's purpose down to a few statements for the media, just why the hell aren't bills written in simple, everyday, clear, concise, language?

Special Addendum: Later, possibly May 17th, l996 (the note I found was rather unclear, one of the news shows had a Republican panel being interviewed. They were asked if the party intended on presenting many bills to the President with the intent of the bills being vetoed. The question was more or less avoided by the panel.

The writer apologizes for not getting the exact particulars, such as the participants and who said what, but he was, let's say, indisposed to the degree that he could not take notes.

The comments overheard brought to mind another occasion during which a republican stated that many bills would be put on the President's desk in the next few months. With what intent was never answered during this interview either.