Hello Lee,
On Thu 2012-Feb-09 21:18, Lee Lofaso (3:800/432) wrote to Richard Webb:
>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.
LL> Forget party labels such as "democrat" or "republican".
LL> Look at the ideas presented, and ways to solve problems
LL> that exist.
YEah I know, liked your Wallace quote, had heard that one
before.
>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.
LL> George C. Wallace once said you can put Democrats and Republicans in
LL> a bag, shake up the bag, and what comes out cannot be distinguised
LL> between the two. Although criticized as being a racist, his views
LL> on politics were sound. And what he said about contrasts being true
LL> in his day is as true today as it ever was.
YEp, and that's one thing i thought even then might swing
MR. Johnson to the Libertarians eventually. I think it was
a Playboy Mag interview where I first became acquainted with him.
RW>A libertarian maybe, but i doubt a socialist.
LL> Depends on how the term is defined. Norman Thomas ran as
LL> a Socialist candidate for years. Although he never won the
LL> presidency, many of his ideas were adopted by both major
LL> political parties, especially the Democratic Party.
Agreed, but he'd never get past teh label he chose to put on himself.
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.
LL> Barack Obama will present himself as being a happily married father
LL> of two wonderful girls, a devout Christian, and somebody who is
LL> always looking out for the best interest of the middle class.
LL> Naturally, he will use that image to contrast himself with that of a
LL> wealthy man who hates the poor and likes to
LL> fire people...
This is what he'll have to do.
RW>That's part of our problem, the two majors keep runing
RW>these damned lawyers at us.
LL> Barack Obama is a lawyer and a fine teacher of Constitutional Law.
LL> Mitt Romney is no lawyer, but rather a failed businessman...
Agreed, but look at how many of our politicians are lawyers. LL> We always
make jokes about lawyers. But truth be known, most of the
LL> Framers of the Constitution were lawyers. And rather good ones at
LL> that.
Indeed, and, they built pretty damn good, if the system is
allowed to run as intended those checks adn balances still
work, over 200 years later. That was intended to be my ig
career track back in high school, etc. That was the vision
of my parents counselors and all, combining my interests and specializing in
the law related to them. In many ways I'm
glad I chose another path, as I'd be representing interests
now if i wanted to make a living which would concern me a
whole bunch when it comes to what's good for just plain
folks.
Regards,
Richard
---
* Origin: (1:116/901)
|
