Terry's 3M's

With all the hoopla surrounding the president's confession, is it any wonder that my thoughts would stray to politics.

Nevada is due for a new governor. But, the choices we have! My, my, my. The primary's going to be held on the first of November. I'm glad I didn't register Republican. (In regular elections, I don't vote along party lines--I vote for whoever I feel is the best candidate. Sometimes, I throw away my vote as I did in the last presidental election. Nevada has the option of voting "None of the above" and that's the vote I chose. When I registered Democrat at 18, it was because I believed the Democratic Party was the best (it was while Nixon was pres.).)

I don't care which of the two Republicans wins the primary. I'm voting Democrat this year. At least for governor.

The Republican choices are: a guy with a bunch of bodyguards that make him appear to be a mob leader. He is loud, abrasive and acts like a Sam Kineson wannabe--definately not gov material. If the ads about him can be trusted (the stuff about the bodyguards, etc. I read in the newspaper several months ago), he doesn't own property in Nevada and still has California plates on his car. (He moved to Nevada a whole 2 years ago.) The other candidate appears to be a guy who can take a flourishing business and run it into the ground. If the ads are true, he's lost over 3/4 of a BILLION of other people's money. I don't want him for governor, either.

The Democrats choices are: the current lt. governor who is perfect in the spot he's in--but, I don't think he'd make a good governor because he is too...well, let's just say that he's not sophisticated enough to present the dignity the office needs. The mayor of Las Vegas, Jan Laverty Jones, who has done a good job as mayor during a time when the city was expanding drastically. And another guy who's seems okay except that I don't agree with his fiscal plans for the state. Come September, we will see who will win the primary.

Nevada may just have a woman governor next year!

About the presidental bruhaha--while the president may not have acted properly, my real concern is what going on behind the scenes. I have a feeling that there is a faction in the government that is making sure focus gets put on this to hide something else that may be going on. After all, presidents have been having affairs since the beginning of the office. I don't condone the behavior, but, why is Clinton's dalliance any different from JFK's? Or Thomas Jefferson's?

What a lot of people are forgetting: Why did Tripp gather all this information and leak it? Who in the government got to her? And why?