Hello Richard,
>RW>I've liked Gary Johnson since he was a governor. I could
>RW>pull the lever for him.
>LL>He actually did a credible job as governor. He does not have the
>LL>name recognition that Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have, but if he
>LL>can manage to get his message across to enough people things could
>LL>get interesting.
RW>YEah I know, but i remember reading about him when he was
RW>New MExico governor and liking him then. I'll have to do
RW>some research and find out if he's got anything going on in
RW>West Tennessee. I'd go knocking on doors for that dude.
RW>A republican who put the libertarian hat on, who truly
RW>believes, "ain't nobody's business if you do ... " whatever
RW>it is you do.
Forget party labels such as "democrat" or "republican".
Look at the ideas presented, and ways to solve problems
that exist.
>LL>Elections are about winning, politics is about contrasts. The best
>LL>way for a candidate to win an election is to show contrast with
>LL>other candidates.
RW>YEah I know, and I'm not seeing a lot of contrasts among
RW>the current field when it comes to the two majors.
George C. Wallace once said you can put Democrats and Republicans
in a bag, shake up the bag, and what comes out cannot be distinguised
between the two. Although criticized as being a racist, his views on
politics were sound. And what he said about contrasts being true in
his day is as true today as it ever was.
>LL>It used to be that federal funding might help. But not in today's
>LL>politics. For example, Barack Obama turned away federal funds in
>LL>his bid for the presidency. I expect him to do the same this time
>LL>around. I also expect Mitt Romney (assuming he is the Republican
>LL>nominee) to also bypass federal funding. Both candidates (Obama and
>LL>Romney) are expected to move toward the center, trying to gain as
>LL>many votes as they can from those voters who are neither stronly
>LL>liberal nor strongly conservative. And that is where a Libertarian
>LL>candidate, or a Socialist candidate, can make some headway. Still a
>LL>longshot for such a candidate to win, but could make a difference as
>LL>to which candidate wins.
RW>A libertarian maybe, but i doubt a socialist.
Depends on how the term is defined. Norman Thomas ran as
a Socialist candidate for years. Although he never won the
presidency, many of his ideas were adopted by both major
political parties, especially the Democratic Party.
RW>Obama will
RW>ahve to stress the fact that Romney's not like us average
RW>folks but extremely rich, and for the very rich. Still,
RW>Obama's another Harvard lawyer or whatever Ivy LEague
RW>school it was, and that ain't no common folks SOmebody like
RW>JOhnson, who iirc isn't a lawyer by trade and who was
RW>common folks can sure emphasize that, you're right there.
Barack Obama will present himself as being a happily married
father of two wonderful girls, a devout Christian, and somebody
who is always looking out for the best interest of the middle
class. Naturally, he will use that image to contrast himself
with that of a wealthy man who hates the poor and likes to
fire people...
RW>That's part of our problem, the two majors keep runing
RW>these damned lawyers at us.
Barack Obama is a lawyer and a fine teacher of Constitutional Law.
Mitt Romney is no lawyer, but rather a failed businessman...
RW>What do you call a thousand lawyers at the bottom of the
RW>ocean?
RW>Answer #1: Not enough lawyers
RW>Answer #2: A good start.
We always make jokes about lawyers. But truth be known, most
of the Framers of the Constitution were lawyers. And rather good
ones at that.
--Lee
* SLMR 2.1a * When will people quit using terms like honkie or nigger?
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: Xaragmata / Adelaide SA telnet://xaragmata.mooo.com (3:800/432)
|
