[Vision2020] Fred Thompson, Bloomberg, Gore For President 2008?
Carl Westberg
carlwestberg846 at hotmail.com
Mon Jun 25 12:49:32 PDT 2007
Pat, you really need to quit sugarcoating things. Let us know how you
really feel. And isn't a certain amount of arrogance almost a prerequisite
for anyone who would presume to be President? Including The Current
Occupant? Carl Westberg Jr.
>From: <pkraut at moscow.com>
>To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fred Thompson, Bloomberg, Gore For President
>2008?
>Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2007 19:21:53 GMT
>
>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/
>
>
>=======================================================
> 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
>=======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail to go? Get your Hotmail, news, sports and much more!
http://mobile.msn.com
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list