In <fc3c071a-21eb-4b81-88a6-e4e97e619c19@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, on
06/30/2008
at 01:31 PM, "Jack G." <jgranade@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>On Jun 30, 1:10 pm, Transition Zone <mogu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote: > On Jun
>29, 6:19 am, al Guacamole <a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 28, 6:46 am, Rumpelstiltskin
>>
>> > <PleaseDoNotReplyByEm...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2008 07:23:40 -0400, Gary <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> > > >No Guilt
>> > > >by Charley Reese
>>
>> > > > It's funny that RalphNader, the perennial presidential-election
>> > > >spoiler, is claiming that Barack Obama is appealing to white
guilt.
>> > > >I've seen no evidence of that. In fact, Obama has been trying his
best
>> > > >to run a colorblind campaign.
>>
>> > > >The truth is, except for his skin color, Obama is your standard
>> > > >Northern liberal. If there's only a dime's worth of difference
between
>> > > >Republicans and Democrats, there's only a penny's worth of
difference
>> > > >between Obama and Teddy Kennedy on matters of policy. Obama,
however,
>> > > >is certainly the smarter of the two.
>>
>> > > >I've never been a fan ofNader, and I don't see why anyone is
paying
>> > > >him the least bit of attention. He says what he thinks will get
him
>> > > >ink and airtime. He's a publicity hound. There's something
perverse
>> > > >about people who will run for office, knowing they can't win, but
are
>> > > >willing to skim a few votes off one of the major candidates.Nader
>> > > >definitely cost Al Gore the election in 2000, so we can justly
blame
>> > > >him for eight years of George W. Bush. As far as I'm concerned,
that
>> > > >consignsNaderto the dung heap.
>>
>> > > I thought it was gay people who cost Gore the election in
>> > > 2000. Oh no, wait, it was black people who didn't vote in
>> > > enough numbers. Oh, no, wait, it was ...
>>
>> > > Oh no, now I remember, it was the US Supreme court.
>> > > How could I forget? (Actually of course, I didn't forget.)
>>
>> > > <snip>
>>
>> > There was pretty much agreement onNader'srole as a spoiler. But I
>> > don't think that that's sufficient reason to pan him. We are a free
>> > country and I dislike the media excludingNaderfrom the presidential
>> > debates.
>>
>> The media has made many many mistakes in recent years. Look at the
>> profitability of their
>> newspapers.
>>
>> > Of course, I know that they can do that. It just seems a very
>> > un-American thing to do. DespiteNader, Gore won the popular vote.
>>
>> And despite Obama, Hillary won it this time. So much for legitimacy.
>> (this means Nader possibilities for angry dems thinking about McCain
>> sup****t)
>>
>> > It wasn't necessary for the court to decide the election. They could
have
>> > simply agreed with the Florida court which called for a statewide
>> > recount.
>>
>> Nader has to really thank big party dems for the latest Florida flop.
>> This is almost Nader's to-lose.
>>
>> > I don't understand why it's necessary to decide so soon and
>> > not mandate a run-off. In many states-- Hawaii included-- a recount
is
>> > always mandated for a close vote. It's the law.
>>
>> Looking at recent AWFUL flip-flops by big party candidates. Nader
>> should take these
>> results for face value.
>>
>> I'm certain Nader will collect 20% of dem voters - at least
>The news media is protecting Obama. They will never say Obama has made a
>flip-flop. They call it a new adjustment. Nadar is the only honest person
>running for President.
....Then the media must be protecting mcCain too -- since he changes what
he says every few days, and no one goes after him for it, as they should
be.
|
