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

[lfalen]

Gore would be better than Hilary Clinton, because I think he is at least honest. Hilary is corrupt. I think a woman president would be great, just not Hilary. I don't think it would be good to have a lot of deferent parties. One or two more strong parties would probably be good. I would like to see the Libertarian party stronger and possibly one other party. If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes there should be a run off. between the top two.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: "Ted Moffett" starbliss at gmail.com
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:25:37 -0700
To: "Paul Rumelhart" godshatter at yahoo.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Fred Thompson, Bloomberg, Gore For President 2008?

> 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
> > =======================================================
> >
> 
>