Liberals and Nader//If Buchanan gets 6 percent without media/debate coverage.
Dick Eastman
> To: eas...@wolfenet.com
> Subject: Fwd: Liberals and Nader
> Date: Sun, Nov 5, 2000, 5:38 PM
>
> I just saw Nader on MEET THE PRESS where Perot,
> again shrewdly again glowingly endorsed Bush.
>
> Thus, I must disagree with Paglia and apparently with
> you too. Here is why for whatever my opinion is worth
> ....:
Dear Bob,
I missed it. (High blood pressure keeps me from
watching things like that.)
Because of our differences over "lesser-of-two-evils-ism"
I have held back the temptation to continue our usual
philosophical/sociological/biographical heart-to-hearts
until after this election. I don't want the petty
differences of the moment to get in the way of the
more cosmic things we bounce off each other.
But I have to answer this one-- and even convert it
into a post. (I hope you will have forgiven my by
Wednesday.) Besides, if this post "succeeds" it
will draw someone's vote away from Bush (to Buchanan)
rather than from Gore. (To me Bush and Gore are
pit bull and German shepherd belonging to the same
establishmentazzi masters.)
Perot¹s membership in the Council on foreign relations
was sponsored by George Bush before the 1992
campaign. Clinton, Bush and Perot knew each other
well before they had that suspiciously relaxed
³bar-stool² presidential debate.
Perot Œs candidacy and his Reform Party had but one
purpose: to divide the anti-establishment grassroots
vote that at that time had been growing in the GOP
(attracted by Ronald Reagan). The strategy
succeeded in both 1992 and 1996. (Remember how
Perot backed out whenever Clinton took the lead.)
I think the party will be stronger and more effective
if the Beijing-bought anti-progressive establishmentarian
stooges are rejected and eliminated by 2004.
In Yakima Democrats are already there.
Interesting how Perot can get on Meet the Press while
Buchanan remains the non-person.
Think about it, Bob.
Let's say it is really true that only one percent
support Buchanan.
Then how big is the Hillary's "extreme right?"
My guess is 95 percent of that one
percent are NOT skinheads.
And let me declare this--and I think I will post
this letter--
If Buchanan wins 7 percent given the handicaps
the establishment has put in his way, it will mean
that he would have won had it been a fair and open
contest of issues, priorities, truthfulness,
wisdom and character. Let me back that statement
up.
Buchanan would have gained enough votes to win
in a fair election if on November 7 he gets
7 percent of the popular vote
DESPITE being being denied his national party's
rightful place in the Presidential debates;
DESPITE him being dropped from media coverage
(what coverage he did get presented nothing of his
positions on China, middle-class jobs, and the
rigged "servant economy" of our our world-class
klepto oligarchs);
DESPITE even mention of his issues being media
taboo in mainstream media campaign coverage
DESPITE the New York Times smear campaign with
its distortions and outrageous conclusions
based upon nothing but Buchanan's right and
reasonable sympathy for the 1940 - Dec.6, 1941
"America First" non-interventionist movement--
thereby giving disreputable politicos license
to portray the candidate as "a Hitler lover"
knowing perfectly that that lie would effectively dry up
the support that Buchanan needed at a critical stage
of his campaign;
DESPITE the establishment stooges assigned to sue
Buchanan, tie him up in court, wear him out, and
sabotage and bring down "Perot's party" to keep it from
"falling into the hands" of real anti-establishmentarian
grass roots;
DESPITE all of the lies that the current
economy is booming --when in fact this grotesquely top-heavy
"economic expansion" is all on paper in the financial sector
while the real wealth, security and future of the middle
class is being bled dry; and
DESPITE private polling services that are not regulated
and that have no legal sanction against them if they
load the questions to force outcomes to affect voters
estimates of a candidate chances in order to control
voting outcomes.
And if the shamefully loaded and unrepresentative
primary system were not rigged for Chase-Manhattan-
approved candidates only -- and Buchanan won the
Republican primaries (as he would have) --then a
vote of 4 percent on Tuesday, I think, would show
sufficient residual strength to indicate that he
would have won with GOP backing.
Dick
R. Cohen@xxxxxxxxx
>To: eas...@wolfenet.com
>Subject: Fwd: Liberals and Nader
>Date: Sun, Nov 5, 2000, 5:38 PM
>
> I just saw Nader on MEET THE PRESS where Perot,
> again shrewdly again glowingly endorsed Bush.
>
>Thus, I must disagree with Paglia and apparently with you too. Here is why
>for whatever my opinion is worth (two cents):
David Martin
If Buchanan were to get 7 percent of the vote or more this Tuesday I don't
think there's a chance in hell that the "official" tally would reflect it.
I think this so-called election is more about "discrediting" the very
popular ideas that he espouses than it is anything else. It reminds me of
the Whitewater investigation, which was really more about covering up
Vincent Foster's murder than anything else, but you would never have guessed
it from the coverage.
---------
DC Dave
Author of "America's Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent
Foster"
& "Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression"
http://thebird.org/host/dcdave
news:alt.thebird
Have you seen http://www.fbicover-up.com?
Dick Eastman <eas...@wolfenet.com> wrote in message
news:9riN5.1269$ki3.5...@den-news1.rmi.net...
Dear Bob,
Perotąs membership in the Council on foreign relations
was sponsored by George Bush before the 1992
campaign. Clinton, Bush and Perot knew each other
well before they had that suspiciously relaxed
łbar-stool˛ presidential debate.
Perot Os candidacy and his Reform Party had but one