On 2008-05-16 19:08 +0100, John Holmes allegedly wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 16 May 2008, Daniele Futtorovic wrote:
>
>>
>> No, it isn't. Look, I'm watching interviews of his, which people
>> put on youtube, pretty often. I've heard him being asked, many
>> times, whether he would endorse him. Every time, his answer was
>> either a flat out "no" or (ironically) "yes, if he changes his
>> views to mine". Now, Holmes would probably throw in that he's
>> lying, and of course I can't prove the contrary. I don't think he
>> his. But that's all I can say to it. If you want to hear him say it
>> yourself, listen to the interview linked to on the following page:
>> <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90438900>
>
> One of the basic rules of really good deception is to not lie about
> the small stuff, so people will believe you on the big stuff.
Of course, not to lie about the small stuff is also one of the basic
consituents of honesty.
> I suspect he's telling the truth about not endorsing McCain. What the
> Republicans need from him is for him not to run.
His sup****t from /outside/ the basic Republican electorate is at least
as great, rather greater, than from inside it.
He has made it repeatedly clear that the other candidates, especially
McCain, and himself have nothing in common in terms of political
philosophy and program. His sup****ters are NOT going to vote for McCain,
what ever happens. So "what the Republicans need from him"... not a
single thing. The Republican party rulers having nothing to gain, and a
lot to lose, from his mere existence as a political factor.
> Anything beyond that would be gravy, only available in return for
> something big, and I don't think Paul really wants a cabinet post or
> something like that. He's happy in Texas, doesn't want to be
> ambassador to France. And a deal like that would make both McCain and
> Paul look pretty sleazy, which is not a good long-term asset for
> either of them, both of whom get by on claiming to be more honest
> than the average politician.
Are you aware that you can find speeches of his on youtube from five or
ten years ago where he says exactly the same things he's said throughout
his campaign? That people have dug out his voting record in Congress and
found it to match his professed beliefs piece by piece? That he
allegedly has a reputation in Congress for voting alone against
everybody else, or, as I think I heard him say, "alone with Kucinich"?
> This election is definitely giving him a big future in American
> politics, though in what capacity is not totally clear. Taking a deal
> like that might blow it.
You're grasping at straws to sup****t your ad hoc and cynical dismissal
of the issue. Although I would agree that, considering the subject,
that's basically a healthy attitude, I think it shouldn't prevent one
from having a closer look occasionally.
He's seventy-some years old. He's been reelected to congress this year,
I think that's a two-year term. He has no future in politics bigger than
his present.
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
