[Vision2020] Fred Thompson, Bloomberg, Gore For President 2008?

[Ted Moffett]

Paul et. al.

Yes, first electing significant numbers of senators and representatives to
the US Congress in alternative parties is clearly the way to go if an
alternative party is ever to have a chance at the presidency.  I find it
amazing that here in the land of individualism (or so we think),
competition, and freedom of choice and lifestyle, that only two political
parties dominate our federal government.  This is like letting two oil
corporations dominate the oil business, and expecting them to not take
corrupting advantage of their duopoly.

Your comments on republicans voting for Hillary in the democratic primaries
in order to guarantee they run against her, reminds me of the republican
funded ad campaigns for Nader in 2000.  I'm not sure that either republicans
or democrats could dominate the primaries of their opposition parties enough
to pull off the scenario you suggest.  Maybe if the vote was close.

Former Tennessee Senator and Hollywood actor Fred Thompson may end up being
the republican nominee, given the current weak republican field, assuming he
announces his bid, which is expected.  This is hot news in political
circles.  And some still speculate that former Tennessee Senator Al Gore may
run again... We could see two former Tennessee Senators, Thompson & Gore,
battle, both with a Hollywood aura, now that Gore is a "movie star" after
"Inconvenient Truth."  I would rather see Gore as the democratic nominee
than H. Clinton, and I think he has more of a chance than Clinton, who seems
to inspire considerable opposition among some voting blocks, though Gore
does also.  I don't think the US is ready for a women president.  Too much
macho sexism still prevalent...

A huge development would be the entrance of New York Mayor Bloomberg, a
billionaire who could fund his own campaign in a third party.  He has
recently switched his party registration to independent, and some insiders
are claiming Bloomberg has signaled he will run for president.  I think he
appeals to "both sides" a bit more than Ron Paul would, so I am not sure how
he would tilt the election, but some think Bloomberg would be more of a draw
for the democratic slanted independent vote, thus possibly being a spoiler,
putting a republican in the White House, as Perot was a spoiler in 1996,
assuring the democrats the White House.

To see the election cycle for the 2008 presidential race in full swing so
early is a bit ridiculous, but the 24/7 news cycle of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX
news milks this for all its worth.

All the current official candidates may be history by the time of the
election... We could see a Thompson/Gore/Bloomberg battle.

Ted Moffett


On 6/20/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> You're probably very right that Ron Paul would never win.
>
> I, also, wish that we had more than the two too-similar parties that had
> any impact in politics in this country.  I think that has to start from the
> bottom and then filter to the top.  The Presidential race is too corporate,
> it will take a large number of non-democrat non-republican members of the
> Senate and House for that to happen.  That would take a large number of the
> same at the State level, and so on down to the city level.
>
> What I was trying to avoid by choosing a candidate that can be reached out
> to is the following:
>
> Republicans vote in the democratic primaries to swing the vote to Hilary
> Clinton, which many people hate with an irrational passion.  The same thing
> happens in reverse, giving the republican party their worse candidate (I'm
> not sure who that is right at the moment).  Then we have a split country
> again that is severely polarized.  If the other party takes the House and/or
> Senate, then nothing goes through.  If they get a majority in both, then
> they can ram whatever they want down our throats.
>
> So, my idea is this.  If the democrats can propose a candidate that can
> get a significant portion of the republican vote, or if the republicans can
> propose a candidate that can get a significant portion of the democratic
> vote, then we've in effect bridged that divide.  I'd rather go with a
> candidate that I'm opposed to on some issues than get this country back into
> a situation where one party can rule everything, and Americans are at each
> other's throats all the time.  Also, the people that jumped the aisle when
> they voted might be more inclined not to vote the party ticket next time and
> might actually give third-party candidates more than a disdainful glance.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>
> Paul et. al.
>
> Ron Paul will never get the Republican nomination.  If he wants to offer
> voters an option, he should run in another party.  Otherwise he will just be
> a Republican version of Kucinich, someone who gets media time and has a
> large following, who speaks his mind a bit more bluntly than the other
> candidates in part because he has no chance anyway and can thus offend
> without worry of alienating critical voting blocks.
>
> If Ron Paul ran in another political party, he could split the more
> "conservative" vote, giving the democratic candidate a huge advantage, like
> Perot in 1996.  He would not win the presidency.  Various "powers that be"
> with the deepest pockets, which after all is what wins presidential
> elections in the current system, would go after Ron Paul with a vengeance.
>
> As far as a candidate that "both sides" can reach out to, this very way of
> thinking is part of the reason democracy is the USA is sadly limited.  Look
> at some of the other democratic governments today and witness the diversity
> of political parties in their nations. I want far more diversity that an
> almost entirely republican/democrat controlled US Congress and executive.
> I'd love to see the US Congress be 10 percent Libertarian/Free Market, 10
> percent Green Party, 10 percent Christian Fundamentalist (let them call
> themselves what they are when they control our nation in the name of their
> religion), 10 percent Socialist, 10 percent Atheist, 10 percent Gaiaist
> (more spiritual version of the Green Party), 10 percent Agaiaist (my new
> word, similar to "Atheist," for those heretical deniers of the true faith of
> Goddess Earth Worship that is the only path to humanity's salvation!), then
> maybe those arrogant democrats and republicans that have a stranglehold over
> politics in the USA can fight over what is left.
>
> Both sides?  Why not 9 sides as I listed above?
>
> Ted Moffett, trying to think "outside the box," which seems to enclose
> thought no matter how I think.
>
>
> On 6/18/07, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com > wrote:
> >
> > In an effort to switch topics, I'd like to pose the following question:
> >
> > What are people's thoughts on Ron Paul (Republican candidate for
> > President)?
> >
> > I'll start it off by saying that I'm on the lookout for candidates that
> > might be somewhat palatable to both sides who don't care to establish
> > more Presidential power or remove any more of my civil liberties, or
> > force us to go to war with any other countries unjustifiably.  I fear
> > that Hilary Clinton will prove to be a rallying point for Republicans to
> > react against.  I'd be willing to switch my vote from my usual vote for
> > Democrats or Independents if it means stopping the kind of trouble we're
> > in the midst of now.
> >
> > As for Ron Paul himself, I really like his stance on civil liberties.  I
> > also like many of his Libertarian positions, but not all of them.  I
> > like that he voted against the Patriot Act, and that he voted against
> > the war in Iraq.  I don't like his isolationist tendencies, or his
> > willingness to fence off Mexico.  I like that he wants to place more
> > decisions in the hands of the individual states, even though I'm in the
> > minority in Idaho.  He seems to be very principled, and doesn't seem to
> > be in any corporations pocket.  I especially like that he sponsored a
> > bill to have Congress declare an actual war in Iraq, although he stated
> > he wouldn't vote for it.  He wanted a real declaration of war if we were
> > going to war, not some Presidential power play.
> >
> > As for his most famous recent stance, I think he is right that our
> > actions in the past have caused a situation where we have made ourselves
> > a target.  The concept of "blowback" is very real.  Our removal of a
> > democratically-elected leader in Iran to be replaced by the Shah and the
> >
> > Iran-Contra affair haven't helped.  Training Osama Bin-Laden how to
> > fight was probably not such a bright idea, either.  I'm not saying that
> > we're to blame for 9/11, just that we may share in the blame in a small
> > way through bad diplomatic or political decisions - and that we should
> > take that into account when making more such decisions.
> >
> > Anyway, enough of my opinions.  What does everyone else think?  Is this
> > a candidate that can be reached out to by both sides?  If not, then who?
> >
> >
> > Paul
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto: Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070622/ac9ee833/attachment-0001.html