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

[pkraut at moscow.com]

I do not believe Gore is honest he is just promoting his movie and his 
companies with his agenda. Who else ownes a company wherein you can 'buy' 
carbon offsets?? He is driving the need/desire for them and he makes the 
money. His movie is not correct nor is his agenda and his life style is 
not in agreement with his own agenda. BUT, he wants to make sure that all 
the little people drive less, eat less and use less stuff. He is an 
arrogant jerk!


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




---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
           http://www.fsr.com/