----- Original Message ----- From: Steven Wallace <steven-wallace at home.com> To: <snetnews at topica.com> Sent: Friday, June 02, 2000 9:10 PM Subject: SNET: The Gore of Gore
> -> SNETNEWS Mailing List
>
> << Steve,
>
> I'm not trying to sound stupid here, but if the conservatives split down
the
> middle, and say some vote for Buchannan and some vote for Bush, that could
> make Gore's chance at president more likely for election? >>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jen, I'm not sure but ....
>
> Buchanan attracts the Anti-NAFTA and Anti-Bush votes too ... it's an odd
mix
> in Texas -- I would also like to see the hard data. Yes, I think that
> Buchanan will get more votes from conservatives than from liberals, but
that
> may not cannibalize Bush or Gore. In other words, what we never hear
about
> is the LATENT votes that Buchanan, alone, would get.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> << Like, if all the conservatives vote for Bush, we have better odds of
NOT
> allowing Gore into office; however, if the votes get divided between
> Buchannan and Bush, there are less for both, and more for Gore and he
> wins -- shit! Gore will be the damn president, and well have four more
> years at least of the damn Clinton administration and all hell will get
> worse! >>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Gore's numbers are so bad -- heck, I don't think he'd win, even if Bush
and
> Buchanan split the total non-Gore votes. But let's suppose that Gore
could
> actually carry 35% or more of the total ... if you were The Republican
> Party, wouldn't you be taking a hard look at the platform positions ...
and
> thinking twice?
>
> Pat Buchanan would gladly hand the presidency to Bush if the Republicans
> would really stand firm on key principles. Instead, they try to "go
> relativist", abandoning their principle with the idea that they can win
> "just like Clinton". But they forget that we have two parties because a
> good number of people will ALWAYS respect principle over pragmatism.
>
> Furthermore, the wishy-washy, uneducated or unprincipled lemmings have
> always followed the drumbeat of the Democrats.
>
> So, it is far more profitable to pursue a more extensive base of
principled
> votes than it is to try and canabalize the Democrat stronghold. Hiring
> Madison Avenue types to write yor campaign plan is foolishness, but Bush
has
> opted for the glitter and puffery, leaving conservatives cold ... that was
> dumb. The man must show some firmness or else he's going to go down in
> flames with conservatives. If I were advising Bush, I would ask him,
point
> blank, "Mr. Bush, what are you really passionate about ... and on which
> policies will you refuse to bend, regardless of public opinion?" Now,
> Buchanan could spend an hour on that answer ... I wonder if Bush could say
> anything ... I don't see it. That being the case, I do not see why Bush
> would be substantially better than Gore ... so I don't worry. If
Republican
> leaders are really that stupid, then this is probably their last election
as
> such .... the pendulum would swing back to the Conservative/Reform Party
in
> 2002 and 2004.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> << Personally, I think that there is something evil about Gore; scary,
like
> he's, I dont know, not human or something (not literally guys, but he
seems
> very cold and creepy); look, I can't have Gore become pres here, this will
> be a nightmare; reassure me that he's not gonna win, please??? I dont
know,
> what do you guys think?? >>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Absolutely .... in case it comforts you, I think that a Gore victory would
> cause quite a few of our 2nd Amendment advocate friends to "go postal" --
> literally .... If I had to put money on that, I would bet 90% odds that
Gore
> would be blown away by an assassain who couldn't bear the thought of
another
> 4 years of tyranny ... there are some really oppressed people out there
...
> we see them online sometimes.. A president's life is threatened or else he
> is truly assasinated or just dies in office at least every fifth
> administration (20 years) ... last in 1980 (Reagan), 1960 (Kennedy), 1940
> (Roosevelt), 1920 (Harding), 1900 (McKinley), 1880 (Garfield), 1860
> (Lincoln) ... now, that may not mean anything but I can see why a lot of
> people would freak out, just as you are .... Frankly, I think a Gore
> administration would throw the country into a revolution -- The Majority
> against Washington! Washington would lose - big time - in my estimation.
I
> will not worry about it; what I worry abot more is vote fraud and the
moral
> corruption that goes unreported ... that is a subtle monster.
>
> So, to make a reeeealy long story short, even if Gore won, I think we'd
> benefit by getting the grassroots on fire again. However, I'd still be
> curious to see how many people who plan to vote for Buchanan would even
show
> up to vote at all were Pat not running. Personally, if Pat or Alan were
not
> running, I would not vote at all. A relativist is a relativist.
>
>
>
> -> To unsubscribe send email to snetnews-unsubscribe at topica.com
> ___________________________________________________________
> T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16
> Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
>