[Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Sun Sep 2 11:12:50 PDT 2012 

My advice?  Vote for the candidate you think is best and let the 
politicos in Washington worry about their own strategies.

Paul

On 09/02/2012 11:02 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> I admit that if I could get EVERYONE to vote for a third party
> candidate it would send a message to Washington. But if only SOME of
> the people vote for that candidate, what message gets sent? What
> message did we send to Washington when Ralph Nader ran as a third
> party candidate against Bush and Gore? The message was that Bush WON
> the election, paving the way for the rising of the deficit, more wars
> than I can count, the worst recession in recent history, etc. This is
> the baggage that Obama was handed, the same baggage that Romney is now
> trying to stick to Obama. It seems like a nice idea but you'd have a
> hard time convincing me that we'd be worse off if those free thinkers
> had voted for Gore instead of Nader. The Bush-Gore-Nader election is a
> perfect example of how dangerous a third party candidate vote can be.
>
> But I'm not really trying to tell you who to vote for; just explaining
> why I won't vote your way.
>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> THAT is a great measure of how broken this system is.  You want to send a
>> message to Washington?  Get everyone you know to vote for a third party
>> candidate.  It doesn't matter who.  If those numbers are large enough to
>> start messing up their math, they will take notice.  If it truly doesn't
>> matter whether Romney wins or Obama does, and if you are at all unhappy with
>> this idea, then the next logical thing to do is to vote for somebody else.
>>
>> Paul
>>
>> On 09/02/2012 10:23 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>> I don't see much of a difference between this and not voting at all.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> That would be true if those were our only two choices.  I don't know if
>>>> any
>>>> 3rd party candidates will make the ballot in Idaho, but you can always
>>>> write
>>>> somebody in.  I'm still thinking of writing in Ron Paul, since he's the
>>>> only
>>>> guy out there that even makes noise about this kind of stuff, but I'll
>>>> also
>>>> be looking into 3rd party candidates as well.
>>>>
>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/02/2012 07:51 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>> How can "Obama is just like all the other politicians" or "It doesn't
>>>>> matter who is President since he has no control over the military" be
>>>>> a reason for NOT voting for Obama rather than some other guy? You go
>>>>> into a restaurant and there are two tables. The hostess asks you if
>>>>> you want to sit in table A or table B. You say: "Well table A is just
>>>>> like table B, so I don't want to sit there." Makes no sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, if both tables are equally bad you might not want to sit at
>>>>> either. But in this case eventually you'll be sitting at one of the
>>>>> tables. They are both the same in one respect (evil foreign policy)
>>>>> but one is considerably better in another respect (one has an evil
>>>>> domestic policy as well).
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't like the fact that my presidential choices are often choosing
>>>>> between the lesser of two evils but given that this one is ...
>>>>> Personally, I wouldn't be comforted by not voting, by saying "I'm not
>>>>> the one who elected that guy," especially given that our country is
>>>>> structured such that it doesn't matter who's in charge. There is
>>>>> something wrong with the US foreign policy and like it or not we're
>>>>> all implicated in that wrongness in some small way for letting it get
>>>>> this bad.
>>>>>
>>>>> The big problem with our political system is that we want someone who
>>>>> is perfect, no spots on their record. But no one who is an eligible
>>>>> presidential candidate -- over 45 (practically speaking) and rich --
>>>>> is going to be perfect. What we get are folks who look perfect because
>>>>> they've been careful their whole lives to be deceptive and seem good,
>>>>> and honest, and socially conscious while all the time being selfish,
>>>>> and egotistical, and power hungry. A lot like divorce lawyers, so our
>>>>> presidency is hardly the only part of our society where this
>>>>> phenomenon exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I'm with Sunil on this topic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With Obama getting no traction on getting out of either front (Iraq or
>>>>>> Afghanistan), with his willingness to go into Libya (at least with air
>>>>>> support), with his inability to get Gitmo closed down and those
>>>>>> incarcerated
>>>>>> to stand a real trial, and with his willingness to run the
>>>>>> assassination-by-drone program, I can come up with only two possible
>>>>>> conclusions about Obama:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.  Obama is just like any other politician, he jumped on the "change"
>>>>>> bandwagon and has turned out to be cut from the same cloth as everyone
>>>>>> else.
>>>>>> He talks a good game, but has no intention of actually doing what he
>>>>>> says.
>>>>>> This is my basic assumption.  It's a horrible thing, especially since I
>>>>>> fell
>>>>>> for his "change" and "see, I'm not like Bush" lies.  But it's better
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> this possibility:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2.  The Office of the President has for all intents and purposes lost
>>>>>> control of this nation's military.  Basically, those in control are so
>>>>>> powerful that a sitting President will bow to their will despite their
>>>>>> ideological differences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let's hope it's only the first one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/01/2012 05:59 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you on the first half of your argument. Given his
>>>>>> willingness
>>>>>> to cave in to the Republicans (well, is it caving, or does he believe
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> what he does?) as well as his willingness to put Social Security and
>>>>>> Medicare on the table, I don't agree with the second half of your
>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But for me, by continuing the Bush foreign policy he forfeits my
>>>>>> support,
>>>>>> meaningless as that is. I think people who are against that foreign
>>>>>> policy
>>>>>> need to say "I will not vote for anyone who does this." Without that
>>>>>> message, the policies will continue. I don't expect better from the
>>>>>> Republicans on this point, but I do expect better from the guy who
>>>>>> promised
>>>>>> change. I think we are fools to reward him for spitting in our faces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And it's bigger than just the foreign policy issue. Cusack and Turley
>>>>>> also
>>>>>> talk about the meaning of the decision to let the torturers walk, and
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> assassination policy. The latter is an unconstitutional power grab.
>>>>>> Bush
>>>>>> went to town violating the Constitution, and Obama is doing the same.
>>>>>> Do
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> think the next president will be any different? We're on the road to
>>>>>> hell
>>>>>> if
>>>>>> we don't say 'No.'
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People who think the Constitution and it's balance of power and due
>>>>>> process
>>>>>> are important are not supporting those values if they vote for Obama.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:34:37 -0700
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>>>>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>>>> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>>>>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My argument is more like this: Romney and Obama are the same when it
>>>>>>> comes to foreign policy but Obama is better when it comes to the
>>>>>>> policies within our borders. Joe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
>>>>>>> <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I understand a lot of people say that as they continue to support
>>>>>>>> Obama,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> this is ultimately their position:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 'I don't care about atrocities he commits outside our borders, as
>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>> as I
>>>>>>>> can support his policies within our borders.'
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't go along with that any more. I'm not pretending Romney will
>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> better on foreign policy, but he can't get much worse.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 14:52:54 -0700
>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is a tough decision. I agree with you that Obama was no better in
>>>>>>>>> many respects than Bush, not wrt military involvement at least. But
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> fear that if a Republican gets elected there will be a rollback of
>>>>>>>>> abortion rights and other rights. Joe
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
>>>>>>>>> <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 'Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I'm about half way through this interview of Jonathan Turley by
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>> Cusack,
>>>>>>>>>> looking at Obama's repugnant foreign policy:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A s long as we support the people implementing these policies, they
>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>> on. I'm not voting for Obama again, because of this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> From: betsyd at turbonet.com
>>>>>>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:57:13 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: Betsy Dickow [mailto:betsyd at turbonet.com]
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: 'Joe Campbell'
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And most of the poor will be poor through not fault of their
>>>>>>>>>>> own...how
>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>> people are working hard and often overtime at the University of
>>>>>>>>>>> Idaho
>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> not making ends meet...many many many. And here it's no different
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Wall Street corporate model...administrators win big and everyone
>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>> peon, working for peanuts.
>>>>>>>>>>> This is democracy? No, this is the will of a few billionaires and
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> Republican Party...Get your head out of the sand and stop thinking
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>>>> of party loyalty.
>>>>>>>>>>> Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>>>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:46 AM
>>>>>>>>>>> To: lfalen
>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How is Ayn Rand's philosophy basically correct? Do you think the
>>>>>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> lazy? Do you disagree that some people have a bad lot and without
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>>> of outside assistance, they are unlikely to realize the American
>>>>>>>>>>> dream?
>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>> so, then Rand is just plain wrong. Tweaking her view to allow for
>>>>>>>>>>> compassion
>>>>>>>>>>> is in this case equivalent to rejecting her view. That is what
>>>>>>>>>>> separates
>>>>>>>>>>> Rand's philosophy from the kind of view that Brooks is suggesting.
>>>>>>>>>>> Brooks'
>>>>>>>>>>> offers a much better, more realistic take on humanity, as I see
>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:18 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not a big fan of David Brooks, but this is not a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>> article.
>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>> Rice also. I have some problems with Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is
>>>>>>>>>>> basicly
>>>>>>>>>>> correct, but it need s to be tempered by some compassion, which
>>>>>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> lack.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:51:28 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=ww
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1=34aeaaa2/80e4ddbc&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787508c_nyt5&ad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =BOSW_120x60_June13_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ec
>>>>>>>>>>>>> om%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 30, 2012
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party of Strivers By DAVID
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> BROOKS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olumnists/davidbrooks/index.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> America was built by materialistic and sometimes superficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> strivers. It was built by pioneers who voluntarily subjected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves to stone-age conditions on the frontier fired by
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dreams
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> riches. It was built by immigrants who crammed themselves into
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hellish tenements because they thought it would lead, for their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> children, to big houses, big cars and big lives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> America has always been defined by this ferocious commercial
>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this zealotry for self-transformation, which leads its citizens
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation less, work longer, consume more and invent more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many Americans, and many foreign observers, are ambivalent about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offended by this driving material ambition. Read "The Great
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gatsby."
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read D.H. Lawrence on Benjamin Franklin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But today's Republican Party unabashedly celebrates this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambition
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of success. Speaker after speaker at the convention
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tampa, Fla., celebrated the striver, who started small,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> struggled
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard, looked within and became wealthy. Speaker after speaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>> argued
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this ideal of success is under assault by Democrats who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>>>> down on strivers, who undermine self-reliance with government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency, who smother ambition under regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans promised to get government out of the way. Reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden of debt. Offer Americans an open field and a fair chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> let their ambition run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you believe, as I do, that American institutions are hitting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> creaky middle age, then you have a lot of time for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you believe that there has been a hardening of the national
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arteries
>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by a labyrinthine tax code, an unsustainable Medicare
>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a suicidal addiction to deficits, then you appreciate this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> streamlining agenda, even if you don't buy into the whole Ayn
>>>>>>>>>>> Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the one hand, you see the Republicans taking the initiative,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> offering rejuvenating reform. On the other hand, you see an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> exhausted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic Party, which says: We don't have an agenda, but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like theirs. Given these options, the choice is pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tampa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker after
>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions, habits
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> governing institutions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republicans strongly believe that individuals determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own fates. In a Pew Research Center
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> poll<http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-sur
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ges-in-bush-obama-years/>, for example, 57 percent of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe people are poor because they don't work hard. Only 28
>>>>>>>>>>>>> percent
>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> control. These Republicans believe that if only government gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the way, then people's innate qualities will enable them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> flourish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there's a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering major from Purdue or the business major from Arizona
>>>>>>>>>>>>> State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to run
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> race. I don't see what the party is offering the waitress with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much more
>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government does not always undermine initiative. Some government
>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs, like the G.I. Bill, inflame ambition. Others depress
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What matters is not whether a program is public or private but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>>>>>> on character.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republicans, who see every government program as a step
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the road to serfdom, are often blind to that. They celebrate the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> race
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to success but don't know how to give everyone access to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> race.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The wisest speech departed from the prevailing story line. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered by Condoleezza Rice. It echoed an older, less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> libertarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservatism, which harkens back to Washington, Tocqueville and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln. The powerful words in her speech were not "I" and "me"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> heroic individual They were "we" and "us" - citizens who emerge
>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of and exist as participants in a great national project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rice celebrated material striving but also larger national goals
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the long national struggle to extend benefits and mobilize all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential. She subtly emphasized how our individual destinies
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependent upon the social fabric and upon public institutions
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools, just laws and our mission in the world. She put less
>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasis on commerce and more on citizenship.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republican Party may be able to perform useful tasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> current hyperindividualistic mentality. But its commercial soul
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> too narrow. It won't be a worthy governing party until it treads
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> course Lincoln trod: starting with individual ambition but
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ascending
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a larger vision and creating a national environment that
>>>>>>>>>>>>> arouses
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambition and nurtures success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.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
>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>     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
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list