Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] Cheney in Washington Post

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Vern Green wrote:

> > So you think that he might believe that being Vice President would hurt 
> > his chances at winning the Presidency?
>
> I do believe that to be the fact. The latest poll coming out this 
> morning has him tied with Hillary, this is significant for a guy who has 
> not officially announced his candidacy. Right now he has the face 
> recognition and the perhaps the name recognition that a sitting vice 
> president has without the ties to the current administration. Being 
> Bush's VP would drag him down.

The thing is, there hasn't been any negative campaigning against Thompson. 
He is exquisitely vulnerable to that kind of attack.  Hillary has been 
attacked constantly for a decade, so we've already heard everything they 
have on her.  I don't think he can win.


> > He worked as a Washington lobbyist for a total of two decades.  One of 
> > his great victories resulted in the massively devastating S&L scandal 
> > of the late 1980s.  He also worked for Westinghouse and GE, both major 
> > defense contractors.
>
> I don't hold lobbying against anyone, who is more of a problem, those 
> who lobby or those who are paid off by the lobbying?

They essentially are criminal conspirators.  I hold both accountable. 
It's like illegal immigrants and the people who hire them, or prostitutes 
and johns, or drug dealers and drug purchasers.


> I also am not in the least worried about his involvement with the S&L 
> crisis.

What kinds of crimes would he have to commit before you would not vote for 
him?  I'll bet he could shoot someone in the face and you'd be fine with 
it, but if he lied about having sex with someone, then you wouldn't vote 
for him.  Did I get it?


> > If you want to manipulate the feelings of the American people for 
> > profit -- call Fred Thompson, he'll help.  When you look at him and 
> > here his voice, don't you get a feeling that he is solid and 
> > trustworthy?  He's pretty good at what he does:  Scamming people.
>
> Who me one presidential candidate in the race today that is not scamming 
> people, Obama? Hillary? Do you actually believe in their sincerity?

Your excuse for electing corrupt conmen is that you think other people are 
also corrupt conmen even though you can present no evidence of that.  In 
your alternative reality, everything is what you want it to be.


> Actually, I look at this guy and I do believe in him. When I look at 
> Hillary, I see the years and years of lies that she has been involved in 
> telling. Obama, while I think he is a decent guy and cannot say he is 
> lieing, I am so far away from his politics that I cannot possibly 
> support him.
>
> Guiliani? McCain? There is no one out there that I can support for 
> President other than Fred Thompson and for the first time in my life, I 
> am actually going to volunteer in a presidential campaign, once he 
> announces he is going to run.

Because you've seen Thompson's face on TV?  (Thompson is a lame character 
actor who has never had a leading role in anything on film or TV.)  Or was 
it his failure as a Senator to do anything that mattered?  Was it the 20 
years lobbying for big corporations?  Or was it that he leaked information 
to the criminal Nixon administration while he was working for the 
prosecution back in 1973?  Or did you actually like the S&L scandal?

What is it about Fred Thompson that you like?  Seriously, are you joking? 
You have not said a single good thing about this guy.

Vern -- if you "look at this guy and ... believe in him" it just might be 
because he is good at what he does -- conning people.  I haven't heard yet 
a single good thing about this guy.  Everything coming to me via TV, web 
and radio is saying that he has "the right look."  All you are saying is 
that he has the right look.  Looks are *nothing*!

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion