Attn JMS- Next step for McCain?
Joe Middleton
Since most people who have sent McCain money over the internet seem to be
individuals and since he has been trying to appeal to a more 'liberal' vote,
perhaps the *official* backing of the Republican Party isn't actually
necessary and he would be better off standing as an independent. Current
voting for presidential elections is low as it is so perhaps some of those
who currently don't bother voting would vote for someone outside the big two
(who let's face it have little between them politically anyway). I know this
is off topic (as were the other discussions on this issue) but I just
thought I would suggest it. My only reservation would be since McCain has a
more right wing voting record in Congress than Bush (son of the ex CIA
leader president) is he the man you really want for President? While I know
someone like Warren Beatty sounds on the face of it daft, is it really?
After all Beatty's film comedy Bulworth showed that he had a fine grasp of
political issues and a clear understanding of the hypocrisy of big money
politics, he also has a consistent record of outspoken left wing views and
is a talented artist (which after all is the only reason everyone in this
group reads your various emails). Seeya. Joe Middleton
Jms at B5
his own party fell behind the goals that he had set for them. He lost, but
then again, there is nothing that says history *must* repeat itself.
If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I think it's
actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years.
jms
(jms...@aol.com)
B5 Official Fan Club at:
http://www.thestation.com
(all message content (c) 2000 by
synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
to reprint specifically denied to
SFX Magazine)
Scott Johnson
: If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I think it's
: actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years.
:
: jms
Really? I'm curious, since this statement goes against what is generally
the conventional wisdom. Why do you think it's feasible now? Because of
Ross Perot, or some other factor?
Thanks,
--
Scott Johnson sco...@eecs.umich.edu
Dept. of EECS, Univ. of Michigan http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~scottdj
(734) 763-5363
Finger for PGP public key.
Von Bruno
"If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I think
it's actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years."
I disagree, if McCain was to run as a third party candidate his political
career would most definately be over. The only person I was ever really glad to
see make a third party run was Pat Buchanon and that was only because I knew
such a move would be political suicide for that little nazi.
McCain is reputed to be a party loyalist and I am hoping that will translate
into his willingness to except the VP spot on the GOP ticket. It would, in my
opinion, solve a lot of GWB's problems and go a long way in assuring a
Republican party victory in November.
Steve Brinich
> The only person I was ever really glad to see make a third party
> run was Pat Buchanon and that was only because I knew
> such a move would be political suicide for that little nazi.
I would enjoy being a fly on the wall the day Pat turns on his TV and
hears "...well, Larrah, I tried to let the Refohm Party go its own way,
but that worked out like an armadiller tryin' to cross the interstate,
and now th' volunteers are *demanding* that I come on back...."
--
Steve Brinich <ste...@Radix.Net> If the government wants us
http://www.Radix.Net/~steveb to respect the law
89B992BBE67F7B2F64FDF2EA14374C3E it should set a better example
Mac Breck
Mac
"Von Bruno" <vonb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000313142422...@ng-xe1.aol.com...
> Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) wrote,
> "If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I
think
> it's actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years."
>
> I disagree, if McCain was to run as a third party candidate his political
> career would most definately be over. The only person I was ever really
glad to
> see make a third party run was Pat Buchanon and that was only because I
knew
> such a move would be political suicide for that little nazi.
>
> McCain is reputed to be a party loyalist and I am hoping that will
translate
> into his willingness to except the VP spot on the GOP ticket.
Given the attack ads between McCain & Bush, ..... are you kidding?!?
If McCain runs as an Independant, and doesn't win, it'll kill Bush's chances
for victory, making Gore a shoe-in, and that sucks.
Mac
Kurtz
>
It can happen. It's happened before. Two words - "voodoo economics".
> If McCain runs as an Independant, and doesn't win, it'll kill Bush's
chances
> for victory, making Gore a shoe-in, and that sucks.
>
Gore definitely is not going to be four more years of Clinton, and
I don't know if that's good or bad.
Mike Van Pelt
Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote:
>> Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) wrote,
>> "If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I
>>think it's actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years."
>
>chances for victory, making Gore a shoe-in, and that sucks.
That, of course, has been the whole point of die-hard liberal
Democrat support of a very conservative candidate like McCain
from the beginning. He was felt to be an easier candidate to
beat in November. Pushing for him to go third-party is an even
more sure bet. His chances of winning are nil, and all of the
"McCain Party" votes would come from Bush, approximately zero
from Gore. Gore could win with 33.4% of the vote, or less.
--
Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the moon, | Mike Van Pelt
and that's a very dubious and disappointing honor. | m...@netcom.com
It's been far too long. -- Gene Cernan | KE6BVH
John W. Kennedy
>
> Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) wrote:
> : If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I think it's
> : actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years.
> : jms
>
> Really? I'm curious, since this statement goes against what is generally
> the conventional wisdom. Why do you think it's feasible now? Because of
> Ross Perot, or some other factor?
I, for one, don't recall ever seeing such an overall level of dislike
for both leading candidates. It would appear that they're mainly
getting the sheep vote.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
Von Bruno
I would say it really boils down to cynicism and voter apathy rather than true
"dislike" for candidates.
<<It would appear that they're mainly
getting the sheep vote.>>
I wouldn't say that. It seems to me that the true "sheep" are those who
withhold their vote either through apathy, cynicism, or in "protest."
~Von Bruno~
Corun MacAnndra
>
>I would say it really boils down to cynicism and voter apathy rather than true
>"dislike" for candidates.
And just what do you think breeds cynicism?
>I wouldn't say that. It seems to me that the true "sheep" are those who
>withhold their vote either through apathy, cynicism, or in "protest."
You don't know much about sheep do you. Sheel follow a ram. There is no
ram leading those who don't vote, whether from cynicism, apathy or just
plain disillusionment with the system. No, the sheep are those who will
blindly follow the party or the candidate without caring what those are
standing for.
As for protest, that only works if someone notices. No one notices when
you don't vote. There used to be a time when you could write in someone
ridiculous like Mickey Mouse or Archie Bunker and have it affect the
overall tally even in a small way. Not anymore. Of course no one notices
when you do vote either.
Corun
Mac Breck
news:00xz4.877$u%1.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net...
> You don't know much about sheep do you. Sheel follow a ram. There is no
> ram leading those who don't vote, whether from cynicism, apathy or just
> plain disillusionment with the system. No, the sheep are those who will
> blindly follow the party or the candidate without caring what those are
> standing for.
Oh, you mean those who *always* vote a straight party ticket in the November
elections? You just described every Union Democrat I know. They wouldn't
vote for a Republican even if *they had proof* that the Democratic candidate
was the Devil himself.
No, I'm not a Bible-thumping religious zealot. The mention of "The Devil"
was just to make a extreme point. You can substitute Hitler, or whoever you
think was equally evil.
I pick my candidates based on where they stand on the issues. Sometimes, I
vote for the Republican, sometimes the Democrat, and sometimes the
Independent.
Mac
Mike Van Pelt
>
>Oh, you mean those who *always* vote a straight party ticket in the November
>elections? You just described every Union Democrat I know. They wouldn't
>vote for a Republican even if *they had proof* that the Democratic candidate
>was the Devil himself.
>
>No, I'm not a Bible-thumping religious zealot. The mention of "The Devil"
>was just to make a extreme point. You can substitute Hitler, or whoever you
>think was equally evil.
Or, for a real-world example, in (I think it was) Illinois a few
years ago, the Lyndon LaRouche candidates managed to win the
Democrat primary for a couple of offices.
IIRC, they won in the general election. Democrats in general would
rather vote for the drooling sycophants of a raving fascist nutcase
than deface their pristine pure-party-line vote.
If neither of the major candidates are acceptable, there are lots
of other parties. Whatever floats your boat is out there somewhere
-- Libertarian, Reform, Taxpayers, American Indepdant, Green,
Natural Law, Peace&Freedom, Socialist, American Communist, Nazi,
Socialist Workers, Revolutionary Communist ... Parties of all
shapes, sizes, and kinds.
None of them are likely to win anything, but they're there to
register your protest vote, and to point in which direction
you're protesting.
(Actually, I think the American Communist Party may have folded
now that there's no Soviet Union to bankroll them any more.)
Corun MacAnndra
>> ram leading those who don't vote, whether from cynicism, apathy or just
>> plain disillusionment with the system. No, the sheep are those who will
>> blindly follow the party or the candidate without caring what those are
>> standing for.
>
>elections? You just described every Union Democrat I know. They wouldn't
>vote for a Republican even if *they had proof* that the Democratic candidate
>was the Devil himself.
Why pick on only the Democrats? My description takes in just as many
Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, whatever. Or haven't you been
paying attention to the Republican reaction to Keyes?
Corun
Mac Breck
> Mac Breck <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Corun MacAnndra" <co...@clark.net> wrote in message
> >>
> >> You don't know much about sheep do you. Sheel follow a ram. There is no
> >> ram leading those who don't vote, whether from cynicism, apathy or just
> >> plain disillusionment with the system. No, the sheep are those who will
> >> blindly follow the party or the candidate without caring what those are
> >> standing for.
> >
> >Oh, you mean those who *always* vote a straight party ticket in the
November
> >elections? You just described every Union Democrat I know. They
wouldn't
> >vote for a Republican even if *they had proof* that the Democratic
candidate
> >was the Devil himself.
>
> Why pick on only the Democrats?
I've never seen anybody but Union Democrats follow the "Vote the Straight
Party Ticket" line so unwaveringly.
> My description takes in just as many
> Republicans, Libertarians, Socialists, whatever. Or haven't you been
> paying attention to the Republican reaction to Keyes?
Republican reaction to Keyes? Enlighten me. Do you mean the Republican
Party reaction to Keyes, or the reaction of the average Republican voter to
Keyes? I like Keyes. It pisses me off that all the people I talk to,
aren't going to vote for him because "He doesn't have a chance." They'd
rather vote for someone who they think will be the winner, than actually try
to influence the election. I guess people no longer vote their conscience,
because they don't have a conscience anymore, or have lost all hope.
Mac
On an Internet survey of the issues, he and I agreed the most (90%
agreement). Next was Bush, McCain, Buchanon (sp?), Gore, and Bradley.
There was a *wide* percentage gap between McCain and Buchanon.
Mac
Paul D. Shocklee
[...]
: Republican reaction to Keyes? Enlighten me. Do you mean the Republican
: Party reaction to Keyes, or the reaction of the average Republican voter to
: Keyes? I like Keyes. It pisses me off that all the people I talk to,
: aren't going to vote for him because "He doesn't have a chance." They'd
: rather vote for someone who they think will be the winner, than actually try
: to influence the election. I guess people no longer vote their conscience,
: because they don't have a conscience anymore, or have lost all hope.
Have you heard him rail against the theory of evolution? I'd find him
frightening if he had any chance of winning. In a Keyes administration,
the NSF physics grants would be decided by the Department of Creationism.
*shudder*
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Paul Shocklee - physics grad student - Princeton University |
| |
| "We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life, |
| when all we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." |
| -- Charles Kingsley |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------------/
Wingnut
>Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) wrote,
>"If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I think
>it's actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years."
>
>I disagree, if McCain was to run as a third party candidate his political
>career would most definately be over. The only person I was ever really glad to
>see make a third party run was Pat Buchanon and that was only because I knew
>such a move would be political suicide for that little nazi.
>
>McCain is reputed to be a party loyalist and I am hoping that will translate
>into his willingness to except the VP spot on the GOP ticket. It would, in my
>opinion, solve a lot of GWB's problems and go a long way in assuring a
>Republican party victory in November.
>
As for being a party loyalist, McCain was extremely critical of Virginia's
republican governor (Gilmore) in his campaign stops here in VA. Rebublicans
IMO, don't tend to be that critical of each other.
I don't about McCain excepting the VP spot. Given his father's choice of the
unimpressive Dan Quayle as VP, I doubt Bush would offer McCain the VP slot.
Wingnut
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s-:+ a--- C++ ULS P L+ E---- W+ N++ !o K- w(---) O-- M- V?
PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP- t-- 5+++ X- R tv b DI+ D+ G e>++ h! r--- y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
CASAmerica
>From: vonb...@aol.com (Von Bruno)
>Date: 3/13/00 2:25 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <20000313142422...@ng-xe1.aol.com>
>
>Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) wrote,
>"If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I think
>it's actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years."
>
>into his willingness to except the VP spot on the GOP ticket. It would, in my
>opinion, solve a lot of GWB's problems and go a long way in assuring a
>Republican party victory in November.
I have no reason not to believe Senator McCain when he states he has no
interest in the VP spot. And I do not think we should hold our breath waiting
for the RNC to beg him to change his mind. For reasons only they can
comprehend, they despise the man. With that in mind, I am hoping against hope
that Dubya decides to plead his case and sway Colin Powell onto the ticket. In
my opinion, that would cinch it for November.
It is not that I am that big of a fan of Dubya. It is just that I am much
less of a fan of Mr. "The Lie of the Day Two-faced Double-talking I Have
Amnesia" Gore. And for someone who has heavy socialist leanings to even think
about voting Republican in 2000 (The Socialists are not allowed on nearly 30
state ballots) should let you know how low I view Mr. Gore.
DLM
CASAmerica
>Message-id: <20000314140640...@ng-xe1.aol.com>
>
>I wouldn't say that. It seems to me that the true "sheep" are those who
>withhold their vote either through apathy, cynicism, or in "protest."
>
I would not call those who withhold their vote in "protest" sheep. Why
should I be forced to choose between the "lesser of two evils" just because the
two big national parties were incompetent? In the state where I live, they make
it virtually impossible for independent or third parties to get on the ballot.
The Libertarian Party finally managed to meet all the state requirements --
signature of at least 5000 registered voters born on the third Tuesday of an
even numbered year whose father fought in the Civil War on both sides or some
other equally ridiculous requirement -- just a few years ago.
Now, this year, though I see myself voting for a presidential candidate I
do not see myself voting for either of the two local Congressional candidates.
The incumbent Republican is just a hair this side of Rasputin while his opponet
(We have not had our primary yet. My state believes in being meaningless on a
national level.) is just a hair on the other side of Rasputin. Democratic
candidates are comprised of a Fed-Ex courier who has yet to make a public
statement about where he stands on anything and the other candidate is a
bartender-bouncer from a string of strip joints. So, I am expected to bless one
of these with my vote? No, thank you.I would rather eat it. So, in "protest" I
will not vote for a Congressional candidate.
So, yes, I believe refusing to vote is a legitimate method of "protest."
If nothing else, with more eligible voters now staying home than voting, I
would think the two big boys of national parties would start to see just how
incompetent and weak their choices have become.
DLM
CASAmerica
>Date: 3/14/00 6:45 PM US Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8amiu4$cqa$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>
>If neither of the major candidates are acceptable, there are lots
>of other parties. Whatever floats your boat is out there somewhere
>-- Libertarian, Reform, Taxpayers, American Indepdant, Green,
>Natural Law, Peace&Freedom, Socialist, American Communist, Nazi,
>Socialist Workers, Revolutionary Communist ... Parties of all
>shapes, sizes, and kinds.
>
>None of them are likely to win anything, but they're there to
>register your protest vote, and to point in which direction
>you're protesting.
>
>(Actually, I think the American Communist Party may have folded
>now that there's no Soviet Union to bankroll them any more.)
Agreed ... to a certain extent. But you have to remember that there are
still many, many states that exercise restrictions on political thought by
excluding many, if not most, third party entries. Even the very well financed
and organized Reform Party will not be on all the ballot in all 50 states. In
fact, I read (I believe it was a Reuters article) that it may be lucky to hit
30 this time around. The Greens, Libertarians and Socialist Party-USA might be
on 20.
Why? Because the various "powers that be" in the states, that would be the
current Democrat and Republican officeholders, make it as difficult as they can
for any potential competition, any potential third voice, any potential threat
to their staus quo.
So, that effectively leaves a large number of us with the alternative of
holding our nose and voting for the least offensive or withholding our vote in
protest.
DLM
Tim Tjarks
> In article <8amac6$h...@library2.airnews.net>, Mac Breck
> <macb...@timesnet.net> wrote:
> >No, I'm not a Bible-thumping religious zealot. The mention of "The Devil"
> >was just to make a extreme point. You can substitute Hitler, or whoever you
> >think was equally evil.
>
> Or, for a real-world example, in (I think it was) Illinois a few
> years ago, the Lyndon LaRouche candidates managed to win the
> Democrat primary for a couple of offices.
>
> IIRC, they won in the general election. Democrats in general would
> rather vote for the drooling sycophants of a raving fascist nutcase
> than deface their pristine pure-party-line vote.
Sorry, you don't recall correctly. None of the LaRouche candidates were
elected to statewide office. And, by the way, this was more like 15-20 years
ago (quite a while ago, but after I moved to Illinois).
There was much ado about this, and none of the "regular Democrats" wanted to be
on the same ticket with the LaRouche folks, so they formed a third party to run
on, leaving the Democratic ticket fairly sparse. I think the Republicans won
most of the statewise races that year, anyway (I think Adlai Stevenson III was
the candidate for governor).
--
Tim Tjarks
Mac Breck
news:8aofdh$m6m$1...@cnn.Princeton.EDU...
> Mac Breck (macb...@timesnet.net) wrote:
> [...]
> : Republican reaction to Keyes? Enlighten me. Do you mean the Republican
> : Party reaction to Keyes, or the reaction of the average Republican voter
to
> : Keyes? I like Keyes. It pisses me off that all the people I talk to,
> : aren't going to vote for him because "He doesn't have a chance." They'd
> : rather vote for someone who they think will be the winner, than actually
try
> : to influence the election. I guess people no longer vote their
conscience,
> : because they don't have a conscience anymore, or have lost all hope.
>
> Have you heard him rail against the theory of evolution? I'd find him
> frightening if he had any chance of winning. In a Keyes administration,
> the NSF physics grants would be decided by the Department of Creationism.
>
> *shudder*
That's the 10% area where we (myself and Keyes disagree). Likely though,
he'd be moderated somewhat by Congress.
Mac
Von Bruno
critical of each other.>> j...@pinn.net
I disagree with that, remember the term "voodoo economics" was coined by George
Bush senior when campaigning for the GOP Presidential nomination in 1980. A
campaign that, even today, is widely regarded as an eceptionally hard fought
race that eventually saw George Bush senior sign on as Ronald Reagan's VP.
Also, though it may not get major play in the mainstream media, those in the
hierarchy of both parties always have their verbose critics from within. The
Democratic and Republican political machines are constantly wrestling with
internal forces and fluxes that could derail their respective agendas and cause
an organizational identity crissis.
~Von Bruno~
WWS
I'm sympathetic to Keyes, as well. However, I could never really support
anyone who never ran anything but their mouth. (Like Pat Buchanon and
Jesse Jackson, as well)
And don't forget that the most controversial Keyes position is that
he would ban all abortions of any kind, anywhere, with no mitigating
circumstances. And he would do everything in his power to make that
happen, too. (I'm not pro-abortion, but I don't think the country
would stand for having one of the abortion clinic picketers sitting
in the oval office)
One of my favorite campaign positions is his statement on the 2nd
amendment, which reads in part: "A strong case can be made, therefore,
that it is a fundamental DUTY of the free citizen to keep and bear arms."
He is as hard-core a conservative as there is in politics today. But
extremists just don't get elected.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Lisa Coulter
McCain is, IMHO, far too emotional/ angry to be a good chooice for President.
I have to admit, I thought better of him -before- the primary process then I do now.
If you want some proof of this, recall or look up CNN's coverage of him after
primary losses. You have to be very controlled emotionally to earn my trust as a
President or VP contender - the stakes are just too high.
Lisa Coulter
Wingnut wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2000 12:25:02 -0700, vonb...@aol.com (Von Bruno) wrote:
>
> >Jms at B5 (jms...@aol.com) wrote,
> >"If I were on his board of advisors, I'd tell him run third party. I think
> >it's actually feasible now, whereas it wasn't in prior years."
> >
> >I disagree, if McCain was to run as a third party candidate his political
> >career would most definately be over. The only person I was ever really glad to
> >see make a third party run was Pat Buchanon and that was only because I knew
> >such a move would be political suicide for that little nazi.
> >
> >McCain is reputed to be a party loyalist and I am hoping that will translate
> >into his willingness to except the VP spot on the GOP ticket. It would, in my
> >opinion, solve a lot of GWB's problems and go a long way in assuring a
> >Republican party victory in November.
> >
>
> As for being a party loyalist, McCain was extremely critical of Virginia's
> republican governor (Gilmore) in his campaign stops here in VA. Rebublicans
> IMO, don't tend to be that critical of each other.
>
Tom Betz
Quoth Lisa Coulter <lcou...@stetson.edu> in <38D0FD01...@stetson.edu>:
|Actually, I am kind of hoping Bush will pick Pataki, who helped him win in NY.
Pataki's gun-control plan anouncement last week (a test-firing "computerized
gun DNA bank", among other things) has pretty much inoculated him against that
possibility.
Bush would instantly lose the NRA, and he can't afford that.
--
|I always wanted to be someone,| Tom Betz, Generalist |
|but now I think I should have | Want to send me email? FIRST, READ THIS PAGE: |
|been a wee bit more specific. | <http://www.panix.com/~tbetz/mailterms.shtml> |
|<http://www.pobox.com/~tbetz> | YO! MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS HEAVILY SPAM-ARMORED! |