They “will not enter their polling places about to pass a pop quiz on the details of each candidate’s positions,” he writes. “. . . most will vote their perceptions about which one can be trusted to say what he means and mean what he says.”

If so, George W. Bush will be the clear winner. For if nothing else in this seemingly never-ending presidential campaign, he has won the trust factor and, as Thomas notes, possibly the election.

The Texas governor has made a strong connection with his message of personal responsibility in an age when “it’s not my fault” seems to have become a stock answer. Certainly, despite Gore’s attempts to separate himself from the moral lapses of the man whom he considers one of the greatest presidents, the vice president’s frequent exaggerations and appearance of desperation at times cast a Clintoneque shadow.

Bush has put his optimistic vision for America squarely before the people. He believes that government “helps best when it gives people the tools and confidence to make their own decisions, to chart their own course. Government should expand opportunity and trust people with responsibility. Government should help us live our lives, not run our lives. Government should offer a helping hand, not a heavy hand.”

On education, health care and other issues, Bush wants less government and has offered creative solutions to problems. His pro-choice approach would encourage competition, improve accountability and lower costs. As for his intelligence and ability to lead, Bush has achieved much as governor of Texas, the nation’s second largest state. Texans re-elected him in 1994 with 68 percent of the vote.

George W. Bush has made a convincing case that he has the necessary tools — intellect, energy, philosophy, leadership ability and character — to make the better president. Not to be overlooked in this era of increasing federal involvement and regulation is that Gore trusts big government to make decisions for us and Bush trusts the people to make decisions for themselves. It is time that the nation moved in that fresh direction.

We recommend a vote for George W. Bush as president.

Flawed process

Gov. Mel Carnahan’s widow, Jean, has agreed to accept appointment to the U.S. Senate if her late husband gathers more votes than incumbent Sen. John Ashcroft next Tuesday.

The governor’s name appears on the election ballot because he died so late in the process that there was no time to replace it with that of someone else.

So Gov. Roger Wilson, perhaps with the agreement of Missouri Democrats, announced that Mrs. Carnahan could have the appointment if she so chose.

She did, saying that she and her husband were a team throughout his political career and that she would carry on just as he would. That isn’t good enough. She has no political experience and no record for Missourians to judge.

Do we replace football coaches, doctors, professors or house painters with their spouses?

Just because someone has had a long, happy marriage and has appeared at the side of and supported a candidate doesn’t qualify that individual for an elective office or guarantee their effectiveness.

We are uncomfortable with the practice of having a surviving spouse named as last-minute substitute for a political office.

That is especially so when that office is one of Missouri’s U.S. Senate seats. Gov. Wilson should have searched for a potential appointee with experience and a record in office.