Now that Ross Perot has dropped out of the presidential race, is The Times going to explain to the disenfranchised voters that they still have an alternative to politics as usual? I am referring, of course, to the Libertarian candidate for President, Andre Marrou.
A Texan like Perot (but without the money), Marrou has been traveling the country espousing radical ideas like decreasing the size of government and creating more jobs by decreasing taxes (he thinks people would rather have the money to hire a handyman to fix their houses than be forced to hire a bureaucrat to regulate their lives). For some reason, though, The Times doesn't cover his activity. Isn't it interesting that you cover a third-party candidate who talks about making government bigger (just as Bush and Clinton do) but you refuse to cover a candidate who talks of giving the country back to the people? It's almost as if you felt that the person is more important than the message. But that couldn't be true, could it?