NEWTON'S LAW: EVERYBODY BLAMES EVERYBODY REGARDLESS OF WHO GETS ELECTED

There are a number of things New Hampshire excels at: fall foliage, pastoral countryside and tourism. New Hampshire contributed to our union poets (Robert Frost) and orators (Daniel Webster). The state gives good granite.

In addition, every four years the state excels at putting politicians in a combative mood. It is the neutron bomb of presidential politics: spare the buildings, destroy the people.

Only on this quadrennial basis do we in the Midwest think much about New Hampshire. Presidential candidates of varying degrees of legitimacy are thick as thieves (what an apt metaphor) in the state during this time for the first-in-the-nation primary. The event arrives Tuesday ... none too soon for the people of New Hampshire, I suspect.

In this peaceful corner of New England, the guest politicians manufacture venom the way maples manufacture sap. Odd, since the state hosts a primary and the commandment of intra-party campaigns is not to speak badly of fellow partisans.

This commandment gets little regard, however, and office seekers routinely tear into one another like so many dogs after a single steak.

Elevating the lunacy and rancor this year is the fact the presidential race was kicked off later than normal, compacting the desperation among those candidates whose long-shot chances start to seem even longer as the primary nears.

Usually, Democrats provide many of the theatrics, and they have obliged this year. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton moved out to an early lead and has been dodging bullets since. Heartlanders Tom Harkin and Bob Kerrey do a fair amount of sniping at the frontrunner, and Jerry Brown, from California and uncharted planets, doesn't seem to like anyone or anything about his line of work.

Only Paul Tsongas seems a sedate man, though almost to the point of appearing out of place in this circus. It's like he wandered in from the faculty lounge and marvels at all the fuss.

More surprising are the Republicans, who raised some hell in this venue four years ago but weren't expected to repeat with the White House occupant on their ticket. Ideological differences make tigers of lambs, enemies of allies ... and New Hampshire breeds this sort of transformation in election years.

As we ponder this, George Bush sinks like a rock in the quicksand called middle ground. As has long been feared by the right, Bush isn't one of them. While Ronald Reagan stayed the course of conservatism, many Republicans now view Bush as a lackadaisical conservator of the movement.

President Bush shows an increasing aptitude to "get along." Patrick Buchanan doesn't favor this "get along" concept. "Get along" means to compromise; compromise isn't a Buchanan strong suit.

But Bush won't concede the right, willing as right might be to cash in Bush. Thus, you have in New Hampshire two Republicans throwing elbows trying to get position; it is a "more-conservative-than-thou" campaign.

(In doing this, they have taken care not to go as far right as David Duke; they'll gladly surrender that particular wing of the GOP, at least overtly.)

I get the feeling none of this matters.

The Democrats have control of Congress and yearn for the White House. The Republicans hold the White House and yearn for control of Congress.

Since 1969, Republicans have been in the White House 19 of 23 years. Democrats have had a majority of Congress that whole time.

Over the years, Congress has blamed presidents for budget messes. Presidents have blamed Congress.

In 1969, federal expenditures totaled $206.7 billion. The estimated outlay for Fiscal Year 1993 is ~$1.5 trillion.

Everybody blames everybody regardless of who is elected. Do you get the feeling this is an insider's game?